Post #19,115
11/21/01 11:33:28 AM
|
Re: Egypt a friend to US?
The following caught my eyes.
These threats are not going unheard on Capitol Hill. Sen. John McCain, who has been the most critical of the Egyptian government's behavior, said in an interview on the October 7 edition of Dateline NBC that moderate Arab countries such as Egypt "are going to have to make a choice and regain the airwaves away from extremists that seem to dominate the dialogue in their own countries." Days later, on Meet the Press, he added: "They are kind of trying to have it both ways. I don't think they can and it's very sad."
When questioned about Sen. McCain's criticism of Egypt, Secretary of State Colin Powell told Fox News days later that while they may have people "who are not happy with what we are doing\ufffd I think it's a little odd for us to say to them, 'You have to muzzle dissent, you have to muzzle those who are speaking out against us\ufffd I think if we want them to be the kind of nations and lands that we preach about, we have to expect that if there is another point of view within that country that differs from the official point of view of the government, you have to give it the opportunity to be expressed."' The same Egyptian-government-controlled media Powell is referring to said of his visit to Egypt, in the March 2 edition of Al-Akhbar: "\ufffdthe general who holds the third-highest position in the greatest country on the face of the earth, revealed that he has the brain of a bird. Colin Powell, the black American, who we thought would bring rare closeness with the Arab states, who we expected more of than we did from his predecessors, shattered our hopes and acted like a stupid teenager."
2 paragraphs. Shows the true mattel of Gen Colin Powell. My respect for him grows ever more. He would have made a great US pres, imnsho. And how shallow another American war hero is. And of course, it also showcases that whoever wrote the article March edition is either ignorant or simply a "stupid teenager".
|
Post #19,161
11/21/01 3:01:15 PM
|
Depends on control
I've seen many mentions of "Egyptian controlled media".
Ted Turner may not have his fingers in every decision made by the staff, but he hires people who manage CNN the way he wants it run. NBC, CBS, ABC, FOX - some are more stockholder-driven than others, all of them are more or less driven by ratings, but it's generally the same. They hire people who set a given tone for the station, and they create programming that, more or less, reflects that tone.
A government-run operation has similarities, but one big difference: it can be considered the voice of the government. If Egypt has programming that consistently goes out of its way to bash the U.S., then the government *wants* that programming. Of course, in most of the Middle Eastern countries there is no such thing as a free press or free media - that does warp the definition a bit.
I'm not going to do a McCain and tell them to censor their broadcasts, but it *is* the voice of the government, and is certainly one thing we need to take into account when developing our foreign policy with respect to Egypt.
Personally, I don't have much respect for either Powell or McCain. McCain showed his colors during the Republican primary. Powell 's supposed to be heading up U.S. foreign policy, but sheesh, seems we keep getting snarled worse and worse.
"Beware of bugs in the above code; I have only proved it correct, not tried it."
-- Donald Knuth
|
Post #19,200
11/22/01 3:13:04 AM
|
Powell's statement is just plain wrong
Powell said: "if there is another point of view within that country that differs from the official point of view of the government, you have to give it the opportunity to be expressed."
The problem is that the government controls the media in the Egypt and the media says whatever the government wants it to say. Powell either doesn't understand the Middle East or is ignoring reality. In the Middle East, time and time again, you find that the leaders say one thing in English for Western consumption, and then either say directly or through the media a very different message in Arabic knowing that almost no one in the West will see or hear it.
|
Post #19,202
11/22/01 7:41:10 AM
|
Re: Powell's statement is just plain wrong
I believe, ie my interpretation, is that Gen Colin Powell is advocating that "freedom of speech" as many in the West proclaim as their virtue should be uphold even in ME, whether the speeches are Pro- or Anti-American.
I don't see anything wrong with that.
As to what the media is saying is actually WHAT the ME governments are REALLY saying...
Why WOULD they want to say what they think the US wants to hear in English and what they really meant in Arab or something? Why is it that even though the relations between the neighbouring ME countries aren't as good, some even hostile, but they do not "double speak" as significantly among themselves?
That points to the flaws in US diplomatic policies, no? Surely something must be wrong.
|
Post #19,203
11/22/01 8:25:14 AM
|
It is wrong ...
Because Powell knows as well as anyone that the press in these countries is government controlled and there is no freedom of the press there. He was asked a specific question why the US doesn't ask those governments to stop the incitement. To claim freedom of the press to allow them to print anti-American, anti-semitic incitement as the answer is a big copout. Powell is playing games by making it look like these countries are free etc. when in reality nothing gets printed unless the government approves it.
You ask "Why WOULD they want to say what they think the US wants to hear in English and what they really meant in Arab or something? "
The answer is very simple, money and US support. The US gives Egypt more then 2 billion dollars a year, therefore the government makes nice to the US and in English sounds moderate. The same with Saudia Arabia, Arafat, etc. They don't want to lose US support so in English for the Western media they try to sound moderate.
As to why they don't "double speak" among themselves, the answer is simple, it is easy to doublespeak to the US because very few people in the US speak or read Arabic and therefore it is easy to hide from the West. However, their neighbors do understand Arabic and therefore how would you like them to "doublespeak"?
|
Post #19,211
11/22/01 8:59:30 AM
|
Re: It is wrong ...
Was not referring to freedom of press... quite different, no?
>The answer is very simple, money and US support. The US gives Egypt more then 2 billion dollars a year, therefore the government makes nice to the US and in English sounds moderate. The same with Saudia Arabia, Arafat, etc. They don't want to lose US support so in English for the Western media they try to sound moderate.
Which brings us to the crust. Why would the US give Egypt 2 Billion a year? So that the government of Egypt will "support" US position as and when required. Saudi? Oil contracts, maybe?
>As to why they don't "double speak" among themselves, the answer is simple, it is easy to doublespeak to the US because very few people in the US speak or read Arabic and therefore it is easy to hide from the West. However, their neighbors do understand Arabic and therefore how would you like them to "doublespeak"?
Or perhaps its because the it ain't good to "cross" the only remaining superpower openly? As to how to doublespeak in native language, read any MS PR lately?
Nevertheless, these are just my opinion. Gen Powell has so far proven himself, to me at least, to be a pragmatic and wise leader. YMMV.
|
Post #19,216
11/22/01 11:41:03 AM
|
Colin Powell
This is the same person who was against the Gulf War and was largely responsible for leaving Saddam Hussein in power in 1991. Here is a good analysis of Powell's Lousville speech [link|http://www.thenewrepublic.com/120301/editorial120301.html|Louisville Slugger]
"The banality of Colin Powell's address on American foreign policy in Louisville last week was breathtaking.
...
And Powell's comment confirms yet again the premise of his sense of American strategy: so as never to fight the Vietnam way, he wishes always to fight the Gulf way. For the secretary of state, it is 1991 or nothing. But Powell's statement betrays also more concrete errors: that the war in the Gulf, for example, was a "successful war." If we were successful in Operation Desert Storm, it was because we defined our way to success, by excluding the overthrow of Saddam Hussein from our definition of it. In the real world of authoritarian regimes and weapons of mass destruction, we failed. "
|
Post #19,218
11/22/01 11:47:22 AM
|
Re: Colin Powell
I respectfully disagree.
The Gulf War in itself was indeed a success. Kuwait was liberated, by a dedicated coalition, spearheaded by the US, which contributed a lot to the success.
The "failure" came later when the US instead chose to unilaterally dictate the terms that Iraq should comply with.
Witness the tens of thousands of Iraqis who died due to lack of medical supplies etc due to the enforced embargo.
|
Post #19,299
11/24/01 2:57:55 PM
|
The Gulf War
What would you have done? The bottom line is that 10 years later Saddam hussein is still in power and still trying to obtain nucear weapons, and may have been the source of the anthrax. I wouldn't call that success.
|
Post #19,314
11/25/01 2:34:22 AM
|
Re: The Gulf War
My take. Mission was accomplished. Kuwait was liberated. Military sanctions imposed for a certain number of years.
Whoever is in power in Iraq was not part of the coalition target in the gulf war. Liberation of Kuwait from Iraq's invasion was.
And that was done. Swiftly. Crisply. In and out operation.
So all in all, I would consider it a success.
But I can't understand how a nuclear power can justify preventing other countries trying to acquire nuclear weapon capability. What makes US more justified than any other countries to own nuclear weapons? Serious question. Appreciate a reasonable answer, or your best take... :)
Same goes for antrax and other bio-/chemical capability.
|
Post #19,318
11/25/01 3:24:23 AM
|
Nuclear Weapons
I agree with you 100% about nuclear weapons. As long as the US maintains nuclear weapons I don't see any justification for teh US objecting to others having them as well. However, the point about Iraq is very simple. 10 years after the Gulf War, Iraq is still a dangerous threat in the region.
|
