Boy, It's Nice We Drove the Bad Guys Out of Egypt

[CuteOldGuy]

Yeah, we picked another winner. Democracy for All! Except they are prohibiting pro-democracy Americans from leaving the country. Odd way for them to express their gratitude.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/...80P1QC20120126

[CuteOldGuy]

Wow! Nobody wants to brag about our victory in Egypt? I find that odd since President Obama is the best foreign policy president ever. Hmmm . . .

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

Wow! Nobody wants to brag about our victory in Egypt? I find that odd since President Obama is the best foreign policy president ever. Hmmm . . .

Echoes of Tehran in '79.

[timpage]

I'm curious what exactly it is that you think the US did that led to the current situation in Egypt? Seems like the Egyptian people got tired of their murdering, torturing, election-fixing leader and got rid of him. No?

And, now you're unhappy that the Egyptian people are audacious enough to think that maybe they, and not us, should decide who leads their country?!? I am outraged and shocked.

[CuteOldGuy]

You have a bad memory, don't you? Obama fully supported deposing a pro-Western leader, and now we have an Islamic Republic. The Egyptians can do what they want, but Obama was telling us how the Egyptians wanted liberty and democracy. They don't. They simply wanted to exchange a pro-Western despot for an Islamic despot.

I really didn't think we should have been involved on either side, but we didn't have to actively oppose Mubarek. He was a stabilizing force for many years, and he was near death anyway. It makes us look ridiculous on the world stage.

But you're right, if the Egyptians want an Islamic republic, they should have one.

[timpage]

My memory is fine, I guess yours is a little cloudy though....and you even got a prompt reminding you what happened the last time we propped up a dictator in the middle-east who was raping his people.

Blaming Obama for the current situation in Egypt is absurd. It presupposes that the US has a level of influence there that it simply does not possess. Same kind of thinking that got us into the Iraq mess. This was an internal political matter.

[CuteOldGuy]

You mean Saddam? The Shah?

I didn't blame Obama for the situation, but his rhetoric aggravated it, and the result is an Egypt hostile to the US. Probably would have happened anyway, but I don't think it sends a good signal to the world when we actively oppose a leader (dictator, despot, whatever) who we have supported for years, and has done our bidding.

Now if you want to discuss whether we should have been supporting Mubarek all those years, along with other despots, that is another discussion. The fact is, this will undermine the way we have been doing foreign policy. If we turn against one despotic ally, the other despots will lose confidence in the US.

I'd argue let's quit supporting despots. But since we won't, it would be nice to have them on our side.

[timpage]

Are you serious? You think that if Obama had actively supported Mubarak during the period preceding his overthrow, that we would be in a better political position with Egypt currently? I'm not understanding you, right?

[Guest050715-1]

I think we should have stayed out of it completely. It is an internal matter between the Egyptians and the Egyptian government. Any support, distention or saber rattling from the US POTUS would not have changed the inevitable. Sometimes, it just isn't our business.

I think that Obama is anti-current/historic American policy. I also think his is very much pro-Muslium not that that necessary is a bad thing. But if he doesn't like Americans that cling to their religion and guns, he shouldn't like foreigners that cling to theirs.

[CuteOldGuy]

Originally Posted by timpage

Are you serious? You think that if Obama had actively supported Mubarak during the period preceding his overthrow, that we would be in a better political position with Egypt currently? I'm not understanding you, right?

You've GOT to learn to read. What I said is that the administration's rhetoric during the revolt will give OTHER allies reason to doubt our commitment to them. Egypt was going to fall anyway, we didn't need to take sides, and certainly didn't need to side against an ally. And the President was talking about how the Egyptians wanted freedom and democracy. Everyone knew that was a crock, so his language further hurt us. He exhibited that he has no clue what is going on in the world.

Ideally, we wouldn't be involved with any of them, but if we insist on trying to police the world, then we shouldn't be shooting ourselves in the foot like we have done in Egypt, Libya, Iraq, and soon to so shoot in Iran and Syria.

But in answer to your question. We were going to lose Egypt regardless. We should have used that energy to reassure our allies, rather than undermine them.

[timpage]

I read fine you arrogant old turd. Your positions, reasoning and reliance on your own set of non-existent facts make you hard to follow sometimes. I don't have time right now to explain in detail why you are, as usual, full of shit but I'll get back on it later. Have a great day.

[Munchmasterman]

Originally Posted by OliviaHoward

I think we should have stayed out of it completely. It is an internal matter between the Egyptians and the Egyptian government. Any support, distention or saber rattling from the US POTUS would not have changed the inevitable. Sometimes, it just isn't our business.

I think that Obama is anti-current/historic American policy. I also think his is very much pro-Muslium not that that necessary is a bad thing. But if he doesn't like Americans that cling to their religion and guns, he shouldn't like foreigners that cling to theirs.

We did stay out of it. To make no comment of any kind speaks for itself and is unrealistic to expect
.
Since you agree that any support, saber rattling, or distention would not have changed anything, why do consider his response to be anti-American policy or pro-Muslim?

And when did he say he didn't like Americans that cling to religion and guns? Have you got a direct quote with him saying he doesn't like them?

That's OK. I know you didn't.

That's just what you wanted to hear.

[CuteOldGuy]

Here you go, Munch. Now admit you're wrong.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xNoJ0...eature=related

[Guest050715-1]

Originally Posted by Munchmasterman

We did stay out of it. To make no comment of any kind speaks for itself and is unrealistic to expect
.
Since you agree that any support, saber rattling, or distention would not have changed anything, why do consider his response to be anti-American policy or pro-Muslim?

And when did he say he didn't like Americans that cling to religion and guns? Have you got a direct quote with him saying he doesn't like them?

That's OK. I know you didn't.

That's just what you wanted to hear.

No we didn't stay out of it. Biden spoke about the official administration position and then went on to question if the thousands of protesters had any real concern.

COG handled the guns and religion issue.

[CuteOldGuy]

Munch won't be back. He's been caught not knowing what he was talking about. Again.