+1

continuing from the preceding post below.

The President may need to also remember those in Egypt who were in communication with and trying to walk a line acceptable to and did not refuse a call from us to change something but still where let to be thrown in prisons by the military guy just for trying democracy.

continuing from the post below

Even for questioning the decision by the elected president to prevent the judiciary from contradicting him, as outrageous as it may look, it should be remembered that, to the best of my knowledge, the judiciary there was still the one that was created by the dictatorship.That decision was reverted later anyway.   

How shameful is it for a country to claim being such an advocate for democracy then let those who probably were counting on it thrown and continue to be in the prisons just for seeking that right like what happened in Egypt despite all what they did trying to fit what it wanted them to be?  

In addition to the earlier disappointment,  here  is part  of our dealing with the dictator who took power through a coup and abolished a real democratic process 

Shouldn't we at least have the decency to require that people who participated in the democratic process get released from their imprisonments and that the elected president, if not released, at least be allowed to leave to any country willing to offer him an asylum (and I really don't know why would some toppled, or were about to be, dictators did get such offer but an elected person would not). Suffering the failure of a democratic process shouldn't also mean they should additionally suffer those punishments for trying it.  We also need to at least tell the guy that he should at least allow people to leave the country instead of punishing those whom he doesn't like and subjugating people to his dictatorship like a Pharaoh. In general, it is one thing to be a dictator on a country and it is another thing to additionally imprison all its people there.  

And we probably should also tell the dictator to stop the crappy claim of fighting extremism there to justify his oppression to people. Even if we judged things in a generalized way and while ignoring the factor of how this country and others do not how t behave correctly, Egypt is far from being in need for his efforts to be moderated. Why doesn't he show the world how he can moderate himself away from oppressing his people, instead?

How can democracy spread in the middle east if those who want to join and be restricted by its rules gets disappointed like what happened to those in Egypt?

Now the dictator is not even trying to open a new page to the future. Instead, he continues to persecute those he accuses of connection to those past events and hold political prisoners.    

Some entities may choose to disappoint others in themselves and choose a less moral path if there is a benefit. The American Governments, on the other hand, may follow that path as if it is a requirement. They did that in Iraq with the uprising of 1991 leaving Saddam's army does things like those done at the times of the Pharaohs in reprehensibility. Contrary to what some may think about people like those in North Korea adding insult to the injury of being under a dictatorship, those people are further away than many if not most of those living in Western countries in believing these dictatorships. However, if you live all your life overpowered like those in places like these you may start to have the impression as if dictator overpowering is undefeatable. So even that factor alone may provide a good justification to why Iraqis did not move before the war.       

In 2012 the American government chose to apply on Egypt its strategy of disappointing others as if it is a requirement. They got an elected government and the power of the military  on different sides balancing things, yet our government here still chose to accept abolishment of the democratic process. Even if we assume they wanted to  count in or follow the choice of those who demanded the removal or did not want that government, do you think that those people would have accepted in exchange of that the abolishment of the entire democratic process making the military takes over?

Even if the American Government did not like the choice of the first election, had many of the people who did not vote earlier realized that it was a real democracy that is there to stay with no persecution for voting their choices, that government might not have gotten another term, but that was not given an opportunity to happen. 

The dictator sentenced the elected

The dictator of Egypt who took the power through military coup had sentenced the elected president to 20 rears in prison for alleged things he did to protesters during his term in 2012. I am sure things are much better now and everyone now can protest and without fear, right?

No one should be deceived into thinking that the courts there are real and that there is any amount of separation of power in dictatorships like these.

Also no one should confuse that with courts here being jokes and under control of corruption powers. This is a misuse for the empowerment of the continuous democracy not the absence of it. 

By the way , if I am not mistaken, didn't that military dictator promise elections that are very overdue by now? What happened to them? Or where they conducted under the very trust worthy supervision of his government?