US expected to slash aid to Egyptian government

Oh, this should be taken well, I'd say. Unilateral cuts to Egyptian aid ..and I don't hear anything about the other half of that balanced agreement being reduced? Are we deliberately destroying balance and parity as the aid has been meant to keep stable over 30 years now?

BANDAR SERI BEGAWAN, Brunei (AP) — U.S. officials said Wednesday that the Obama administration is poised to slash hundreds of millions of dollars in military and economic assistance to Egypt. The announcement is expected this week, once official notifications have been made to all interested parties.

I assume someone has explain to our President that following Carters Camp David Agreements the aid to roughly 1 billion toward Egypt and a relatively equal amount toward Israel has been the outside method of maintaining that uneasy balance.

President Barack Obama's top national security aides recommended the aid cutoff in late August, and Obama had been expected to announce it last month. But the announcement got sidetracked by the debate over whether to launch military strikes against Syria.

Side tracked? They mean to say covered up, I think.... The fact we were drop kicking a traditional ally right in the family jewels before starting a new war would have made BIG difference to Syria support. He'd have seen even LESS than he actually did, I believe. Had we known Egypt was an adversary nation he intended to poke and piss off even more? Oh yeah.. I can see how that got ..uhh...side tracked.

In Cairo, Egypt's military chief Gen. Abdel-Fattah el-Sissi described Egypt's relations with the United States as "strategic" and founded on mutual interests, but cautioned that his country would not tolerate pressure, "whether through actions or hints."

Source

Egyptians are, to my experience and knowledge, a proud and very well educated people. They have a tradition and unbroken line of it going back LONG before our nation was even a dream in someone's distant thoughts. The cheap and cheesy manipulation going on here would be reckless in most situations. It's terminally dangerous given current regional issues, IMO.

Is he TRYING to start a war between the nations over there? nvm.. silly question.

reply to post by Wrabbit2000


I understand the why's of giving all this aid to egypt and isreal, however, it is quite obvious we cannot afford it.... I think aid overseas should [emphasis added] be cut before aid to the families of veteran's and social security gets cut...

Sorry, that is simply where I stand on the issue... we have to take care of our own before we worry about either egypt or isreal... and both should be cut, not just one

reply to post by Wrabbit2000

Why does our president bend over backwards to give aid to Egypt when the MB takes over and rescinds it when they are out of power?

reply to post by OpinionatedB

I agree 100% that we cannot afford it. The amount of aid going out to almost, literally, every nation in the world at one level or another, is just obscene.

I would kindly ask our President though..if we are going to hack and slash aid to allies, make some logic apply with that action and make it uniform across a situation where the aid forms a lynch pin of stability for a given area.

This just casually takes out half of a balanced situation ...which is literally my only real beef. It's the reckless way it's being done, not that it doesn't need to be done.

reply to post by Wrabbit2000


I agree with you wholeheartedly... as I said, it needs cut across the board, the stability factor was to bring a balance between aid given Israel and aid given Egypt.. that is why we give to Egypt.. so if we cut Egypt then we need to cut Israel, both equally.

reply to post by OpinionatedB


Now why can our leaders be as simple, logical and grounded as people around here?

If we all had a week to change things, oh what profound changes we'd see happen, eh? I bet it would all work out better than the Chinese Fire Drill we see now, too.

reply to post by Wrabbit2000


Too true! But this is again why I think these people on capital hill need firing. They appear to be lacking in the common sense department!

Our money has already influenced war over there - this is nothing new. It should be cut to all though - other than perhaps refugee groups ("when" it can be afforded). If a person cannot afford to feed their own family they should not be feeding the neighbors. But the powers that be will always have their pet projects. And we help to fund those.

greencmp
reply to post by Wrabbit2000

 

Why does our president bend over backwards to give aid to Egypt when the MB takes over and rescinds it when they are out of power?

Because giving aid to a nation that has been taken over by military coup is not allowed.

How about stopping ALL the aid to every single country that US is been keeping in debt, hell we could fill out the coffers of the SS fund surplus that has been raided for years to pay for defense.

How about that, trillions of dollars, no wonder the government do not dare to tell the people that we need austerity because they know that we know how much tax payer waste and abuse goes to their pork.

reply to post by buster2010


Coup or counter-coup? Mubarak wasn't exactly requested to step down with a polite note. He was forcefully removed to bring in Morsi, as it happened..who then was forcefully removed, his party outlawed and most who had anything to do with him now in prison and awaiting trial.

I think the lines of coup and countercoup are very blurred if not merged in Egyptian politics. Hopefully they clear up their problems and by the sound of it, without our help being the best way.

Wrabbit2000
reply to post by buster2010

 

Coup or counter-coup? Mubarak wasn't exactly requested to step down with a polite note. He was forcefully removed to bring in Morsi, as it happened..who then was forcefully removed, his party outlawed and most who had anything to do with him now in prison and awaiting trial.

I think the lines of coup and countercoup are very blurred if not merged in Egyptian politics. Hopefully they clear up their problems and by the sound of it, without our help being the best way.

edit on 9-10-2013 by Wrabbit2000 because: (no reason given)

Morsi won the election he wasn't put into place by a coup. Sisi however was put into place by a coup.

reply to post by buster2010


That is one way to look at it.... The opportunity for Morsi to ever run, in what many have suggested was far from spontaneous events as it appeared then anyway, came by violent overthrow and deposing of the internationally recognized leader of Egypt. That..generally..would be a coup if not revolution by force.

Morsi didn't do anything to correct that state of affairs brought orignally by violent force...he pushed harder and harder to keep going in the direction that violence started Egypt in. The people (Over 8 million on the street the night Morsi was removed by force, himself) spoke clearly in their presence and the 20+ million signatures demanding his removal from the rank and file Egyptian citizens.

I'd say the will of the people was delcared, heard and followed ..by everyone but the fighters of the Muslim Brotherhood. They outright told the Egyptian military that if anything happened with Morsi's rule, they'd fight with terror in the streets. Yes.. Indeed.. they are men of their word, unfortunately.

I suspect Egypt has other support it can look forward to after not be under our DODs thumb.

Does everyone realize that we are on the brink of default for the first time ever in the history of this country?

Something has to be cut and it needs to be something to do with military budgets. They are cutting benefit programs as we speak... have already made cuts in light of this shutdown and budget crap. They can't agree on anything because some do not want to lose any grip on the rest of the world and I think they are being paranoid psychopaths.
Either that or they want a fight.

We need to take care of what is in THESE borders.

I say in fair play we cut the Israeli aid as well since they wont listen to he UN.

Yeah, I've quite a list of ideas to cut the budget but if you notice, there's parts of the spending that SOME refuse to cut... and it involves all the global meddling efforts. No matter what, they will keep spending that money until there is no more sick, elderly or needy people to worry about. It would be one thing if it made sense. Sacrifice the weak for the good of the herd(not that I agree but it's how some think)... but it doesn't even make sense.

They have to do something.... because they've got a deadline coming up.

And this is absolutely nothing against Egypt... I just think they've got enough mojo on their side to be ok without the aid as soon as the focus comes off of them. The terrorists that come into Egypt... it's like it's support of protection money, only it's backwards. It's like saying...See, you need us to have our noses up in your business military and we will even pay you for it.

When Egypt is untied to western military efforts, then we'll see what happens to the terrorist activity.... because it will no longer have this agreement looming over it with western interest all over it.

reply to post by Wrabbit2000

That is one way to look at it.... The opportunity for Morsi to ever run, in what many have suggested was far from spontaneous events as it appeared then anyway, came by violent overthrow and deposing of the internationally recognized leader of Egypt. That..generally..would be a coup if not revolution by force.

The protest that led to Mubarak being removed from office was a peaceful one until Mubarak's men started the violence. The military didn't remove him from office he stepped down. So there was no military coup here. Morsi was removed from office by the military and the General that removed him now sits in the president's office. That is a military coup and that is why it is illegal to give aid to Egypt.

We shouldn't be sending a penny overseas when we can't take care of our own.
This is getting ridiculous, that funding should have been stopped long before they start kicking people out of their homes.

reply to post by Wrabbit2000


Hmmm. Egyptian aid is an important carrot helping preserve the peace between Israel and Egypt.

They seem to be using this suspension as a threat to help get democracy rolling in Egypt again.

reply to post by Astrocyte


I think Egypt is making it as clear as crystal, the "democracy" the Muslim brotherhood represents will never legally be permitted in that nation again. They had been outlawd, directly, until just shortly before Morsi took power under that banner. We're seeing why...as they'd been trying to take Egypt by force since well before any of the current crop of leaders were in power.

I wonder how that works now when Egypt simply won't do what we want? Do we write off a historic and long term strategic ally? I believe Russia has already expressed very strong interest in Egypt as an allied nation to their growing sphere of influence.

I'm starting to wonder how much the United States is going to lose as a nation and long term, as a people ..in pursuit of support to the Muslim Brotherhood and affiliate organizations? Egypt is an incredible strategic loss it took decades to develop and maintain to this point. How quickly, it seems, we're throwing age old friends under the bus, eh?

reply to post by buster2010


We see this polar opposite as if we'd watched two totally different events. I believe you also take Egypt, Libya, Tunisia and Syria as isolated, stand alone and independent actions happening with loosely associated people.

I've viewed the entire "Arab Spring" as the actions of one single group over the rest of the affiliates since almost the start of this. That means the decades of brutal history the Muslim Brotherhood carries for attempting to ovethrow Egypt (assassinating it's President at one point) and attempting to overthrow Syria are not historic anomolies but a simple forerunner to current events.

That probably means we'll never agree here ...since I see coorindation and will where you see isolated uprising.

reply to post by buster2010


Actually, according to John Locke if an elected official attempts to change the constitution against the will of the people or against the consent of the people that elected official is officially declaring a state of war and is considered rebel.. (in so many words)

When either the Legislative is changed, or the Legislators act contrary to the end for which they were constituted; those who are guilty are guilty of Rebellion. For if any one by force takes away the establish'd Legislative of any Society, and the Laws by them made pursuant to their trust, he thereby takes away the Umpirage, which every one had consented to, for a peaceable decision of all their Controversies, and a bar to the state of War amongst them. They, who remove, or change the Legislative, take away this decisive power, which no Body can have, but by the appointment and consent of the People; and so destroying the Authority, which the People did, and no Body else can set up, and introducing a Power, which the People hath not authoriz'd, they actually introduce a state of War, which is that of Force without Authority: And thus by removing the Legislative establish'd by the Society (in whose decisions the People acquiesced and united, as to that of their own will) they unty the Knot, and expose the People a new to the state of War. And if those, who by force take away the Legislative, are Rebels, the Legislators themselves, as has been shewn, can be no less esteemed so; when they, who were set up for the protection, and preservation of the People, their Liberties and Properties, shall by force invade, and indeavour to take them away; and so they putting themselves into a state of War with those, who made them the Protectors and Guardians of their Peace, are properly, and with the greatest aggravation, Rebellantes Rebels.

press-pubs.uchicago.edu...

Granted this is a more american look at democracy and elected government.

Now, this is what happened in Egypt when Morsi in effect suspended the Egyptian constitution against the will of the people...

Egypt's Islamist president unilaterally decreed greater authorities for himself Thursday and effectively neutralized a judicial system that had emerged as a key opponent by declaring that the courts are barred from challenging his decisions.

www.huffingtonpost.com...

When the people revolted against this action, ie: a suspension of the constitution in Egypt against the peoples will and consent, Sisi had no choice but to step in to prevent an outright civil war, and he is holding office at current moment until order can be fully restored and new elections held.

That is not then technically a coup. It is the military preventing an all out civil war, one Morsi would not have lived through had Sisi not stepped in, and in effect saved his very life.