Egypt better under democratically elected Morsi, says Paul? Heck no, says I!

christians-killed-in-church-attack

“A military coup in Egypt yesterday resulted in the removal and imprisonment of the elected president, Mohamed Morsi, a closure of media ron_pauloutlets sympathetic to him, the house arrest of his advisors, and the suspension of the constitution. The military that overthrew Morsi is the main recipient of the $1.3 billion yearly US aid package to Egypt. You could say that the US ‘owns’ the Egyptian military that just overthrew its democratically-elected leader. ” – Ron Paul

This is one reason that I diverge from Ron Paul (and his son, Rand) and have a hard time supporting him. I love his fiscal policies and his attitude on government transparency, but his foreign policy throws me for a loop. The Egyptian people (and the military) just ousted a dangerous Islamist ideologue who was quickly consolidating power and threatening the destruction of Egyptian society. Under his rule, Christians, who have existed peacefully in Egypt for generations, were being murdered in the streets in horrific ways, political opponents and critical journalists were being charged with crimes and jailed, and repressive laws like those of other Islamist states were being introduced, Morsibut all Mr. Paul can do is criticize the fact that a democratically elected president was overthrown. So what if that elected leader’s policies were looking more and more like that of the dictatorship he was elected to replace, so what if his allies were a cult of death-obsessed radicals and the sworn enemies of humanity, he was democratically elected. That’s all that matters. Under Ron Paul’s leadership the forces of Radical Islam would be left unchecked and the world would be facing an extremely grave situation (WWIII?) within a generation.

That is all. For now. Happy Independence Day.

~ Ian

Advertisements

2 thoughts on “Egypt better under democratically elected Morsi, says Paul? Heck no, says I!

  1. I don’t believe he was saying that he discouraged overthrow of dictatorships. His “beef” with the whole situation is that America continues to use its resources to install and support these types of people with little or no regard to what the blowback will be. This is the playing out of that blowback. We sent 1.3 billion dollars to his government without even knowing first if it is was a viable or sustainable one. Now that the government is dissolved who does that money go to? Who do the aircraft and tanks we sent go to? People who are probably not going to be very friendly to us or our allies that’s who. For instance we support the Muslim Brotherhood in Syria who in turn supports Al Queda so by proxy we are playing both sides of the field. This shouldn’t surprise anyone. The British did the same thing in WW1 they sold arms to anyone who would take them with no regard to political position. It ended up biting them in the butt. We don’t seem to learn from history but instead we have no worries when it comes to repeating it. It’s as if every 10 years we hit write erase and start from scratch. Coming from someone who has seen the astronomical amount of waist that we have dumped into these countries and have seen friends die because of it trust me. I’m all about helping countries to enjoy the freedoms we enjoy but to haphazardly throw money and blood into things that aren’t working to people that hate us no matter what. That’s where the problem is.

    • Andrew – great post. Thanks. If that was Paul’s point than I’m in agreement with him, but I’m not entirely sure that was his point. His expanded comments (available on his website and elsewhere) seem to back up the idea that he would prefer to have the democratically elected Morsi left in power rather than have the military overthrow him. He excoriates the US both for backing Mubarak’s dictatorship for so long and for continuing to back the Egyptian military afterwards, and while he doesn’t come out and directly say it, its pretty clear from the focus of his ire that he believes the electoral process in Egypt should have stood.

      That is where I disagree. Morsi and his ilk are Islamists of the highest order and have been attempting to gain a foothold in Egypt since the 1930s. Their lone goal is to see a radical Islamist regime ruling Egypt and they were making strides in that direction. While the ballot box is definitely the preferred method of regime change, in the case of the Islamists I don’t think we have that luxury. Had Morsi and the Muslim Brotherhood been allowed to stay it is very likely that they would have become far more difficult to get rid of down the road.

      While I hate the idea of foreign aid as much as the next libertarian conservative, at this point, Egypt’s military has proven to be an important ally in the fight against the spread of radical Islam and may just be worth the investment. Unfortunately, the same cannot be said for the so-called Syrian rebels who are seeking to depose Bashar al-Assad. The Obama Administration continues to make grave errors in its choice of allies (first the Islamist Morsi and now the Syrian Islamists.) Two is a coincidence, three is a pattern.

Comment

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s