New York was the site of a terrorist attack too.

And being a free democracy the U.S. went onto kill load of women and children. As it had done so many many times before. And will again.

It's what the American people wanted. Many still do.

Americans lecturing people on the export of political violence sticks in the throat somewhat don't you find?

And yes, there is very real possibility that Egypt will become an Islamic democracy. That it will not seek to realign itself with Isreal and the U.S.

I can see why you would feel that this is the worst of all possible outcomes. I'm not sure the average Egyptian necessarily feels the same way of course.

Actually, I don't really expect this. I expect the army to take control and they have been the recipients of a shit load of U.S. aid for a very long time now. They are the real power in Egypt right now and they are squarely on the U.S. payroll.

One thing is for sure, they aren't going to model the future off their country on Israel.

No one is.

I think that most people who live nearby greatly prefer Islamic theocracies and tyranical dicatatorships to that. In fact a lot of people would prefer to blow themselves up. And who can blame them?

Originally posted by Precusor

Tunsian tyrants have fallen.. now its Egypt turn.

Watch: http://vimeo.com/19248086

Glad to see some Arabs have finally pulled their heads out of their asses and realized their shitty standard of living is due to their sub standard leadership and not Israel.

Originally posted by baff

 

 

One thing is for sure, they aren't going to model the future off their country on Israel.

No one is.

I think that most people who live nearby greatly prefer Islamic theocracies and tyranical dicatatorships to that. In fact a lot of people would prefer to blow themselves up. And who can blame them?

And that is why they remain poor and hungry. Free market democracy in Israel has produced a first world standard of living without oil in the desert. The Arabs could duplicate that economic feat if they would choose to move away from being ignorant racists.

Originally posted by baff

Given that most of my girls are currently in Egypt, the last thing I want is a revolution there.

 

@Ihmo, Iran was secular when it was a dictatorship. When it adopted democracy, they all voted for their religous leaders to rule them.

That's the thing about democracy, once people have fought for the freedom to vote, they tend to vote for what they want and not what some foreigner wants them to want.

Thats one of the problems, democracy is wanted but maybe not what people want or how they got manipulated to think what is good for them. Even Hitler was voted democratically....its a double edged-sword.

Btw..I just did read the news about what the Telegraphy is writing about and thought I should post it here...wasnt quick enough hehe. I could not find a lot more legtimate sources about that, the next days will probably show more. Its just interesting that they did first back up such puppies and I wonder what is the reason they want such a big change in this area...this is explosive.

I think the worst is that they shut down the mobile phone net and parts of the Internet. It just shows what you can expect when riots would start in your own country. Both are very powerfull communication tools in the meanwhile to organize groups, very effective.

Like some said already, the problem would be very huge when in egypt or in other nations with current protests radical moslems would get the power,  for Israel especially. This would be a disaster. Dont forget that Iran had its "revolution" aswell but it was violently repressed last year. We preach democracy, freedom and human rights but pact with regimes like Saudia Arabia, Egypt, Algeria which are everything else but democratic countries and such questions wouldnt even arise.

Originally posted by baff

New York was the site of a terrorist attack too.

And being a free democracy the U.S. went onto kill load of women and children. As it had done so many many times before. And will again.

 

Prove it. Post any link that is proof Americans deliberately target women and children, like radical Muslims that blow up a mosque that is not being used as a base of operations for enemy combatants.

You can't.

You can make the claim, but you can't back it up.

Collateral damage will never equal deliberately killing women and children in terrorists attacks.

You can say it from now until you die, but it still wont' be true.

Collateral damage =/= terrorist attack on civilians.

I know it, you know it, the world knows it. 

It's a waste of everyone's time to make such ludicrous claims.

Originally posted by Aetius73

Originally posted by baff

 

 

One thing is for sure, they aren't going to model the future off their country on Israel.

No one is.

I think that most people who live nearby greatly prefer Islamic theocracies and tyranical dicatatorships to that. In fact a lot of people would prefer to blow themselves up. And who can blame them?

And that is why they remain poor and hungry. Free market democracy in Israel has produced a first world standard of living without oil in the desert. The Arabs could duplicate that economic feat if they would choose to move away from being ignorant racists.

We may not live to see it, but there is no doubt of the final outcome.

One day, the oil will run out.

You can't buy tanks and guns and build nuclear weapons with sand. And when the oil runs out, they won't have any income because they've royally screwed their economies in order to enforce their Sharia Law. Oppressing people takes a lot of energy and effort, and all that effort doesn't go into the economy.

Even the Chinese communists have given up religious oppression, because it just ain't worth it.

But when the oil runs out, that's the end of radical Muslim regimes.

Hope it comes before then, but it will end.

We may see it in Egypt. Don't know yet, might also see the Muslim Brotherhood take over and use the Egyptian resouces to kill women and children for Allah.

We'll just have to see how it goes.

Originally posted by Ihmotepp

Originally posted by baff

New York was the site of a terrorist attack too.

And being a free democracy the U.S. went onto kill load of women and children. As it had done so many many times before. And will again.

 

 

Prove it. Post any link that is proof Americans deliberately target women and children, like radical Muslims that blow up a mosque that is not being used as a base of operations for enemy combatants.

You can't.

You can make the claim, but you can't back it up.

Collateral damage will never equal deliberately killing women and children in terrorists attacks.

You can say it from now until you die, but it still wont' be true.

Collateral damage =/= terrorist attack on civilians.

I know it, you know it, the world knows it. 

It's a waste of everyone's time to make such ludicrous claims.

Usually terrorist bombers attack a specific target or person. I guess the people who get killed other then that person is collateral and shouldn't be counted as a terrorist attack.

Also during the "shock and awe" campaign in Iraq most iraqi's were terrified at that moment.

Originally posted by Xirik

Originally posted by Ihmotepp

Originally posted by baff

New York was the site of a terrorist attack too.

And being a free democracy the U.S. went onto kill load of women and children. As it had done so many many times before. And will again.

 

 

Prove it. Post any link that is proof Americans deliberately target women and children, like radical Muslims that blow up a mosque that is not being used as a base of operations for enemy combatants.

You can't.

You can make the claim, but you can't back it up.

Collateral damage will never equal deliberately killing women and children in terrorists attacks.

You can say it from now until you die, but it still wont' be true.

Collateral damage =/= terrorist attack on civilians.

I know it, you know it, the world knows it. 

It's a waste of everyone's time to make such ludicrous claims.

Usually terrorist bombers attack a specific target or person. I guess the people who get killed other then that person is collateral and shouldn't be counted as a terrorist attack.

Also during the "shock and awe" campaign in Iraq most iraqi's were terrified at that moment.

This is incorrect, and if you use your head for a moment, i think you'll see the flaw in this logic.

The idea of a radical Muslim terrorist attack is to deliberatly kill as many civilians as possible.

EVERYONE that dies or is wounded is deliberately targeted.

When they go into a Mosque or restaurant or market place with a bomb, the intention  is to kill as many civilians as possible.

If the bomb in the Mosque also kills people outside the Mosque, that is not "collateral damage" that is part of the plan to begin with.

Collateral damage can ONLY occur if your target is military, never when you are deliberately targeting civilians.

What moral relativists like baff, and perhaps you, do not understand, is that the action much be judged by the INTENTION, not the outcome.

If your INTENTION is to take out military targets, and not to deliberately kill civilians, it's collateral damage. If your INTENTION is just to kill women and children for Allah, it's just sick murdering for your God, not collateral damage.

Under international humanitarian law and the Rome Statute, the death of civilians during an armed conflict, no matter how grave and regrettable, does not in itself constitute a war crime. International humanitarian law and the Rome Statute permit belligerents to carry out proportionate attacks against military objectives,^[7] even when it is known that some civilian deaths or injuries will occur. A crime occurs if there is an intentional attack directed against civilians (principle of distinction) (Article 8(2)(b)(i)) or an attack is launched on a military objective in the knowledge that the incidental civilian injuries would be clearly excessive in relation to the anticipated military advantage (principle of proportionality) (Article 8(2)(b)(iv). Article 8(2)(b)(iv) criminalizes:
Intentionally launching an attack in the knowledge that such attack will cause incidental loss of life or injury to civilians or damage to civilian objects or widespread, long-term and severe damage to the natural environment which would be clearly excessive in relation to the concrete and direct overall military advantage anticipated;
Article 8(2)(b)(iv) draws on the principles in Article 51(5)(b) of the 1977 Additional Protocol I to the 1949 Geneva Conventions, but restricts the criminal prohibition to cases that are "clearly" excessive. The application of Article 8(2)(b)(iv) requires, inter alia, an assessment of:
(a) the anticipated civilian damage or injury;
(b) the anticipated military advantage;
(c) and whether (a) was "clearly excessive" in relation to (b).

If

Originally posted by Aetius73

Originally posted by baff

 

 

One thing is for sure, they aren't going to model the future off their country on Israel.

No one is.

I think that most people who live nearby greatly prefer Islamic theocracies and tyranical dicatatorships to that. In fact a lot of people would prefer to blow themselves up. And who can blame them?

And that is why they remain poor and hungry. Free market democracy in Israel has produced a first world standard of living without oil in the desert. The Arabs could duplicate that economic feat if they would choose to move away from being ignorant racists.

Israel is getting since a long time moderate economic and military aid, currently the whole world profits from Oil. Did you ever seen jewish fundamentalists and their own racist behaviour ? The harrasement of palestinians, there are narrow alleys protected with nets since the farmer throw their garbage on their heads in some parts. This is a double edged sword ...would be carefull here. This whole conflict between muslims and Israel is much more complicated, but well thats a different story than the egypt riots currently.

Originally posted by spizz

Originally posted by Aetius73

Originally posted by baff

 

 

One thing is for sure, they aren't going to model the future off their country on Israel.

No one is.

I think that most people who live nearby greatly prefer Islamic theocracies and tyranical dicatatorships to that. In fact a lot of people would prefer to blow themselves up. And who can blame them?

And that is why they remain poor and hungry. Free market democracy in Israel has produced a first world standard of living without oil in the desert. The Arabs could duplicate that economic feat if they would choose to move away from being ignorant racists.

Israel is getting since a long time moderate economic and military aid, currently the whole world profits from Oil. Did you ever seen jewish fundamentalists and their own racist behaviour ? The harrasement of palestinians, there are narrow alleys protected with nets since the farmer throw their garbage on their heads in some parts. This is a double edged sword ...would be carefull here. This whole conflict between muslims and Israel is much more complicated, but well thats a different story than the egypt riots currently.

No, it's actually very simlpe.

No one will beat you, jail you, or kill you in Israel for not following Kosher laws.

What if you don't want to wear a yarmulke in Israel, the little beanie hat that Jewish men wear? What's going to happen to you then?

What if you don't believe in drinking alchohol nad you live in Israel, and don't drink any. What's going to happen to you then?

Well, nothing.

What if you are a woman in Palestine controlled by Hamas, and you don't wear a Hijab?

What if you decide to have a beer in Palestine controlled by Hamas?

See the difference?

How do you keep oppressive religious control in Palestine if you feel you need to force women to wear a Hijab?

There is no need for the same oppressive control in Israel, becuase they don't feel the need to force you to wear a Yarmulke.

Originally posted by Xirik

 

Usually terrorist bombers attack a specific target or person. I guess the people who get killed other then that person is collateral and shouldn't be counted as a terrorist attack.

Also during the "shock and awe" campaign in Iraq most iraqi's were terrified at that moment.

Here, try this, it might help.

Imagine there are some dead civilians. Now imagine it actually matters WHY they are dead, not just that they are dead. (And unless you are a nut case, it actually DOES matter, and all international law agrees).

So you ask the question. Why did you kill those civilians?

If there is a military component to the answer, this is collateral damage, and accepted in WAR (no war in HISTORY has ever not killed civilians) and NOT considered a WAR CRIME by International law.

So your answer is, enemy combants were sniping from that position, setting up rockets there, they shot at us and then ran into that building, etc. We returned fire, civilians got killed.

THAT is collateral damage.

Now compare this answer.

WHY did you kill those civilians?

So we could make a political statement.

THAT's murdering civilians for your god, not collateral damage.

Get it?

Originally posted by Ihmotepp

Originally posted by Xirik

 

Usually terrorist bombers attack a specific target or person. I guess the people who get killed other then that person is collateral and shouldn't be counted as a terrorist attack.

Also during the "shock and awe" campaign in Iraq most iraqi's were terrified at that moment.

 

Here, try this, it might help.

Imagine there are some dead civilians. Now imagine it actually matters WHY they are dead, not just that they are dead. (And unless you are a nut case, it actually DOES matter, and all international law agrees).

So you ask the question. Why did you kill those civilians?

If there is a military component to the answer, this is collateral damage, and accepted in WAR (no war in HISTORY has ever not killed civilians) and NOT considered a WAR CRIME by International law.

So your answer is, enemy combants were sniping from that position, setting up rockets there, they shot at us and then ran into that building, etc. We returned fire, civilians got killed.

THAT is collateral damage.

Now compare this answer.

WHY did you kill those civilians?

So we could make a political statement.

THAT's murdering civilians for your god, not collateral damage.

Get it?

reread what I said and get back to me kay?

Originally posted by Xirik

Originally posted by Ihmotepp

Originally posted by baff

New York was the site of a terrorist attack too.

And being a free democracy the U.S. went onto kill load of women and children. As it had done so many many times before. And will again.

 

 

Prove it. Post any link that is proof Americans deliberately target women and children, like radical Muslims that blow up a mosque that is not being used as a base of operations for enemy combatants.

You can't.

You can make the claim, but you can't back it up.

Collateral damage will never equal deliberately killing women and children in terrorists attacks.

You can say it from now until you die, but it still wont' be true.

Collateral damage =/= terrorist attack on civilians.

I know it, you know it, the world knows it. 

It's a waste of everyone's time to make such ludicrous claims.

Usually terrorist bombers attack a specific target or person. I guess the people who get killed other then that person is collateral and shouldn't be counted as a terrorist attack.

Also during the "shock and awe" campaign in Iraq most iraqi's were terrified at that moment.

Big difference between collateral damage and a terrorist deliberately killing woman and children. "Shock and Awe" was impressive Honestly. You had civilians standing  half a block away while a cruise missle from a hundred miles away was able to hit a specific target.  It wasn't anything like the carpet bombing of much earlier wars.

In a really, I do mean REALLY, twisted way you are right. The end result is the same.  The two are different though because of the peoples intentions.

U.S. forces want to kill terrorists.

Terrorists generally want to target something at its peak hour to kill as many civilians as they can.

/Sarcasm on

Frankly for all I care we could pull all our forces out of everywhere.  Put out a single warning.  If a terrorist group starts up in your country and pulls off something like the World Trade Center attacks.  Have fun in your nuclear wasteland.  Then divide the resources up, after some time has passed,  between the major countries of the world.

We could name that policy "Allah this!"   As a bonus gift we could strap 5 tree huggers to each missle.  Let's call that Amendment: "Fertilizer: For The Rebuilding!"

/sarcasm off.

 

Originally posted by Xirik

Originally posted by Ihmotepp

Originally posted by Xirik

 

Usually terrorist bombers attack a specific target or person. I guess the people who get killed other then that person is collateral and shouldn't be counted as a terrorist attack.

Also during the "shock and awe" campaign in Iraq most iraqi's were terrified at that moment.

 

Here, try this, it might help.

Imagine there are some dead civilians. Now imagine it actually matters WHY they are dead, not just that they are dead. (And unless you are a nut case, it actually DOES matter, and all international law agrees).

So you ask the question. Why did you kill those civilians?

If there is a military component to the answer, this is collateral damage, and accepted in WAR (no war in HISTORY has ever not killed civilians) and NOT considered a WAR CRIME by International law.

So your answer is, enemy combants were sniping from that position, setting up rockets there, they shot at us and then ran into that building, etc. We returned fire, civilians got killed.

THAT is collateral damage.

Now compare this answer.

WHY did you kill those civilians?

So we could make a political statement.

THAT's murdering civilians for your god, not collateral damage.

Get it?

reread what I said and get back to me kay?

Read it again, response is the same.

Originally posted by spizz

Originally posted by Aetius73

Originally posted by baff

 

 

One thing is for sure, they aren't going to model the future off their country on Israel.

No one is.

I think that most people who live nearby greatly prefer Islamic theocracies and tyranical dicatatorships to that. In fact a lot of people would prefer to blow themselves up. And who can blame them?

And that is why they remain poor and hungry. Free market democracy in Israel has produced a first world standard of living without oil in the desert. The Arabs could duplicate that economic feat if they would choose to move away from being ignorant racists.

Israel is getting since a long time moderate economic and military aid, currently the whole world profits from Oil. Did you ever seen jewish fundamentalists and their own racist behaviour ? The harrasement of palestinians, there are narrow alleys protected with nets since the farmer throw their garbage on their heads in some parts. This is a double edged sword ...would be carefull here. This whole conflict between muslims and Israel is much more complicated, but well thats a different story than the egypt riots currently.

Egypt has received quite a bit of aid from the United States as well it was the #2 overall receipient of U.S. foreigh aid over the last 30 years (I'm sure you noticed all of the American gear those Egyptian Army soldiers were using not to mention the F16s the air force was using on their fly bys). Not to mention having the great luck of getting to reap the fees associated with the Suez Canal. If that wasn't enough Egypt also pumps 700k barrels a day of oil. Egypt has some serious advantages of it's own that have been squardered through the rampant corruption of their authoritative regime (a problem pretty much all Arab nations have it seems to be a cultural liability). If all of this wasn't enough to jump start an economy they also have one of the largest tourism draws on the planet the Pyramids.

Israel on the other hand asked  the United States to phase out economic aid in 1998 as it was no longer needed.

"Starting with fiscal year 1987, Israel annually received $1.2 billion in all grant economic aid and $1.8 billion in all grant military assistance.  In 1998, Israel offered to voluntarily reduce its dependence on U.S. economic aid. According to an agreement reached with the Clinton Administration and Congress, the $1.2 billion economic aid package will be reduced by $120 million each year so that it will be phased out in ten years"

How many Arab regimes are lining up to come off the aid teet?

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/US-Israel/foreign_aid.html

Originally posted by JayBirdz

Originally posted by Xirik

Originally posted by Ihmotepp

Originally posted by baff

New York was the site of a terrorist attack too.

And being a free democracy the U.S. went onto kill load of women and children. As it had done so many many times before. And will again.

 

 

Prove it. Post any link that is proof Americans deliberately target women and children, like radical Muslims that blow up a mosque that is not being used as a base of operations for enemy combatants.

You can't.

You can make the claim, but you can't back it up.

Collateral damage will never equal deliberately killing women and children in terrorists attacks.

You can say it from now until you die, but it still wont' be true.

Collateral damage =/= terrorist attack on civilians.

I know it, you know it, the world knows it. 

It's a waste of everyone's time to make such ludicrous claims.

Usually terrorist bombers attack a specific target or person. I guess the people who get killed other then that person is collateral and shouldn't be counted as a terrorist attack.

Also during the "shock and awe" campaign in Iraq most iraqi's were terrified at that moment.

Big difference between collateral damage and a terrorist deliberately killing woman and children. "Shock and Awe" was impressive Honestly. You had civilians standing  half a block away while a cruise missle from a hundred miles away was able to hit a specific target.  It wasn't anything like the carpet bombing of much earlier wars.

In a really, I do mean REALLY, twisted way you are right. The end result is the same.  The two are different though because of the peoples intentions.

U.S. forces want to kill terrorists.

Terrorists generally want to target something at its peak hour to kill as many civilians as they can.

/Sarcasm on

Frankly for all I care we could pull all our forces out of everywhere.  Put out a single warning.  If a terrorist group starts up in your country and pulls off something like the World Trade Center attacks.  Have fun in your nuclear wasteland.  Then divide the resources up, after some time has passed,  between the major countries of the world.

We could name that policy "Allah this!"   As a bonus gift we could strap 5 tree huggers to each missle.  Let's call that Amendment: "Fertilizer: For The Rebuilding!"

/sarcasm off.

 

To imotepp and jaybirds let me show you something I wrote.

Usually terrorist bombers attack a specific target or person. I guess the people who get killed other then that person is collateral and shouldn't be counted as a terrorist attack.

AM I TALKING ABOUT TERRORISTS WHO DELIBERATELY TARGET INNOCENTS? NO.  LEARN TO FING READ YOU  ILLITERATE __________.

*caps are for imotepp and is ways of pretending someone is for something when they clearly state something different. He just quotes and doesn't really reply to anything he just goes on his pulpit and just spouts generalities over and over.

Originally posted by Xirik

Originally posted by JayBirdz

Originally posted by Xirik

Originally posted by Ihmotepp

Originally posted by baff

New York was the site of a terrorist attack too.

And being a free democracy the U.S. went onto kill load of women and children. As it had done so many many times before. And will again.

 

 

Prove it. Post any link that is proof Americans deliberately target women and children, like radical Muslims that blow up a mosque that is not being used as a base of operations for enemy combatants.

You can't.

You can make the claim, but you can't back it up.

Collateral damage will never equal deliberately killing women and children in terrorists attacks.

You can say it from now until you die, but it still wont' be true.

Collateral damage =/= terrorist attack on civilians.

I know it, you know it, the world knows it. 

It's a waste of everyone's time to make such ludicrous claims.

Usually terrorist bombers attack a specific target or person. I guess the people who get killed other then that person is collateral and shouldn't be counted as a terrorist attack.

Also during the "shock and awe" campaign in Iraq most iraqi's were terrified at that moment.

Big difference between collateral damage and a terrorist deliberately killing woman and children. "Shock and Awe" was impressive Honestly. You had civilians standing  half a block away while a cruise missle from a hundred miles away was able to hit a specific target.  It wasn't anything like the carpet bombing of much earlier wars.

In a really, I do mean REALLY, twisted way you are right. The end result is the same.  The two are different though because of the peoples intentions.

U.S. forces want to kill terrorists.

Terrorists generally want to target something at its peak hour to kill as many civilians as they can.

/Sarcasm on

Frankly for all I care we could pull all our forces out of everywhere.  Put out a single warning.  If a terrorist group starts up in your country and pulls off something like the World Trade Center attacks.  Have fun in your nuclear wasteland.  Then divide the resources up, after some time has passed,  between the major countries of the world.

We could name that policy "Allah this!"   As a bonus gift we could strap 5 tree huggers to each missle.  Let's call that Amendment: "Fertilizer: For The Rebuilding!"

/sarcasm off.

 

To imotepp and jaybirds let me show you something I wrote.

Usually terrorist bombers attack a specific target or person. I guess the people who get killed other then that person is collateral and shouldn't be counted as a terrorist attack.

AM I TALKING ABOUT TERRORISTS WHO DELIBERATELY TARGET INNOCENTS? NO.  LEARN TO FING READ YOU  ILLITERATE __________.

*caps are for imotepp and is ways of pretending someone is for something when they clearly state something different. He just quotes and doesn't really reply to anything he just goes on his pulpit and just spouts generalities over and over.

If you are targeting civilians, then there can be no "collateral damage".

Collateral damage means you were targeting military personnel or enemy combantants, and civilians got in the way and were accidently killed.

If your goal is to kill civilians, as is the goal for radical Islamic terrorists, then there can be no "collateral damage".

Collateral damage is the UNINTENTIONAL killing of civilians.

If you INTEND to kill civilians, then you can't cause "collateral damage".

Originally posted by Xirik

 

To imotepp and jaybirds let me show you something I wrote.

Usually terrorist bombers attack a specific target or person. I guess the people who get killed other then that person is collateral and shouldn't be counted as a terrorist attack.

AM I TALKING ABOUT TERRORISTS WHO DELIBERATELY TARGET INNOCENTS? NO.  LEARN TO FING READ YOU  ILLITERATE __________.

*caps are for imotepp and is ways of pretending someone is for something when they clearly state something different. He just quotes and doesn't really reply to anything he just goes on his pulpit and just spouts generalities over and over.

Since when do terrorists have non civilian targets in mind?   Please find a quote from a terrorist organization that expressed sympathies that innocents were killed accidently.   You can't MAKE UP a scenario to prove a point=)   When we drop a bomb we don't WANT TO kill civilians.  It happens because the people we're bombing PURPOSELY set up shop in and around civilians to MAXIMIZE the casualties and use it to smear us.  Thats what makes them terrorists and not military.

Almost a million hits so far on youtube. Is it political? I don't know. It's nicely done, a video of the struggle of the Egyptian people.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ThvBJMzmSZI&feature=player_embedded#

Originally posted by Precusor

Obama didn't have the balls to back the green revolution.. now it seems the coward wont back the Egyptians.

There is actually a pretty good reason not to publicly support these revolutions -- whether you accept it or not I guess is the question. The reason, however, is that to publicly support these revolutions is to give the necessary propaganda tools to the current leaders in these countries to portray the unrest and protests as a foreign coup / plot to destroy (or take over) the country, which could ultimately derail any popular support for the calls to revolution.

It's also likely that, at least in the case of Egypt, that the country's leaders are contingent with U.S. foreign policy and the results in any revolution may lead to the development of a government more self-interested than being another U.S. satellite state with a puppet democracy.