Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
so you think that the US should sit back and let terrorists take over? Read your statement... that is what you are saying.
I think that is the point Egyptians are asking themselves. Should they let foreigners (I'm not sure they use the terrorist label as liberally as we Americans do) control their political landscape? I think they have arrived at the conclusion, for worse or better.
"Jimmy Carter will go down in American history as "the president who lost Iran," which during his term went from being a major strategic ally of the United States to being the revolutionary Islamic Republic. Barack Obama will be remembered as the president who "lost" Turkey, Lebanon and Egypt, and during whose tenure America's alliances in the Middle East crumbled. The superficial circumstances are similar. In both cases, a United States in financial crisis and after failed wars loses global influence under a leftist president whose good intentions are interpreted abroad as expressions of weakness. The results are reflected in the fall of regimes that were dependent on their relationship with Washington for survival, or in a change in their orientation, as with Ankara."
The article goes on to say that at least Jimmy Carter preached human rights and Obama's predecessor George W Bush made blunt calls for democracy and freedom where as Obama thinks the main problem in the Middle East is Israeli occupation. His failure in that area made him back off and concentrate on preventing Israel and Iran from going to war.
There's a lot more in the article about whether Obama could do anything. To be fair, I heard a few people on Fox News say Obama is handling what's happening in Egypt now, correctly and this article is more about the lead up to what's going on now, in Egypt.
Talk about seeing the world through your own lens.
From the linked article:
The street revolts in Tunisia and Egypt showed that the United States can do very little to save its friends from the wrath of their citizens. Now Obama will come under fire for not getting close to the Egyptian opposition leaders soon enough and not demanding that Mubarak release his opponents from jail. He will be accused of not pushing Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu hard enough to stop the settlements and thus indirectly quell the rising tides of anger in the Muslim world. But that's a case of 20:20 hindsight. There's no guarantee that the Egyptian or Tunisian masses would have been willing to live in a repressive regime even if construction in Ariel was halted or a few opposition figures were released from jail.
Why would anyone even indirectly try and link the demonstrations in Tunisia and Egypt to Israel's settlement policies.
The writer also asserted that Obama only focused on Israel in his speeches in Turkey and Egypt.
But he did not imitate his hated predecessor, President George W. Bush, with blunt calls for democracy and freedom.
Obama apparently believed the main problem of the Middle East was the Israeli occupation...
Totally ignoring the following section of Obama's Cairo speech.
The fourth issue that I will address is democracy.
I know there has been controversy about the promotion of democracy in recent years, and much of this controversy is connected to the war in Iraq. So let me be clear: no system of government can or should be imposed upon one nation by any other.
That does not lessen my commitment, however, to governments that reflect the will of the people. Each nation gives life to this principle in its own way, grounded in the traditions of its own people. America does not presume to know what is best for everyone, just as we would not presume to pick the outcome of a peaceful election. But I do have an unyielding belief that all people yearn for certain things: the ability to speak your mind and have a say in how you are governed; confidence in the rule of law and the equal administration of justice; government that is transparent and doesn't steal from the people; the freedom to live as you choose. Those are not just American ideas, they are human rights, and that is why we will support them everywhere.
There is no straight line to realize this promise. But this much is clear: governments that protect these rights are ultimately more stable, successful and secure. Suppressing ideas never succeeds in making them go away. America respects the right of all peaceful and law-abiding voices to be heard around the world, even if we disagree with them. And we will welcome all elected, peaceful governments – provided they govern with respect for all their people.
This last point is important because there are some who advocate for democracy only when they are out of power; once in power, they are ruthless in suppressing the rights of others. No matter where it takes hold, government of the people and by the people sets a single standard for all who hold power: you must maintain your power through consent, not coercion; you must respect the rights of minorities, and participate with a spirit of tolerance and compromise; you must place the interests of your people and the legitimate workings of the political process above your party. Without these ingredients, elections alone do not make true democracy.
Obama's message wasn't lost on everyone. I've heard several interviews with Egyptians quoting from Obama's Cairo speech.
And how did that work out? Not very well, because we still gave them the money, and because he is still there. Yes, many presidents have made comments for show, but just for show. Heck, Bush Sr said he was going to cut aid to Israel too, but of course he didn't.
If we always support the people of Egypt, they will understand if we give their country aid. We always need to support the people, because they will always be there; leaders come and go, but our relationship with the people should always be the same. Which is why we could give financial aid, and other forms of aid, while still being critical of Mubarak's policies and actions.
0bama is our president, and it will be his relationship with Mubarak that will be cemented in the minds of the people, not some previous president's.
And so will the name of the next president. If he is a good, moderate ally to US, his name and Obama's name will be forever linked. Agreed? I am using your own reasoning here.
Quote:
You tell me, has 0bama sided with the people or with Mubarak? If the Egyptian people think 0bama supported Mubarak, but not them, and Mubarak is given the boot, then how can 0bama claim credit for an Egypt w/o Mubarak?
If you have followed his comments, you know he supports democracy, and the state dept said that Mubarak's time may have come.
I think you are just way too eager to smear Obama in some way, but you have to remember that in the end this could make him look very good.
So far even the Republicans agree with how this has been handeled http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/sc-dc-egypt-gop-20110131,0,6720288.story (broken link)
Talk about seeing the world through your own lens.
From the linked article:
The street revolts in Tunisia and Egypt showed that the United States can do very little to save its friends from the wrath of their citizens. Now Obama will come under fire for not getting close to the Egyptian opposition leaders soon enough and not demanding that Mubarak release his opponents from jail. He will be accused of not pushing Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu hard enough to stop the settlements and thus indirectly quell the rising tides of anger in the Muslim world. But that's a case of 20:20 hindsight. There's no guarantee that the Egyptian or Tunisian masses would have been willing to live in a repressive regime even if construction in Ariel was halted or a few opposition figures were released from jail.
Why would anyone even indirectly try and link the demonstrations in Tunisia and Egypt to Israel's settlement policies.
The writer also asserted that Obama only focused on Israel in his speeches in Turkey and Egypt.
But he did not imitate his hated predecessor, President George W. Bush, with blunt calls for democracy and freedom.
Obama apparently believed the main problem of the Middle East was the Israeli occupation...
Totally ignoring the following section of Obama's Cairo speech.
The fourth issue that I will address is democracy.
I know there has been controversy about the promotion of democracy in recent years, and much of this controversy is connected to the war in Iraq. So let me be clear: no system of government can or should be imposed upon one nation by any other.
That does not lessen my commitment, however, to governments that reflect the will of the people. Each nation gives life to this principle in its own way, grounded in the traditions of its own people. America does not presume to know what is best for everyone, just as we would not presume to pick the outcome of a peaceful election. But I do have an unyielding belief that all people yearn for certain things: the ability to speak your mind and have a say in how you are governed; confidence in the rule of law and the equal administration of justice; government that is transparent and doesn't steal from the people; the freedom to live as you choose. Those are not just American ideas, they are human rights, and that is why we will support them everywhere.
There is no straight line to realize this promise. But this much is clear: governments that protect these rights are ultimately more stable, successful and secure. Suppressing ideas never succeeds in making them go away. America respects the right of all peaceful and law-abiding voices to be heard around the world, even if we disagree with them. And we will welcome all elected, peaceful governments – provided they govern with respect for all their people.
This last point is important because there are some who advocate for democracy only when they are out of power; once in power, they are ruthless in suppressing the rights of others. No matter where it takes hold, government of the people and by the people sets a single standard for all who hold power: you must maintain your power through consent, not coercion; you must respect the rights of minorities, and participate with a spirit of tolerance and compromise; you must place the interests of your people and the legitimate workings of the political process above your party. Without these ingredients, elections alone do not make true democracy.
Obama's message wasn't lost on everyone. I've heard several interviews with Egyptians quoting from Obama's Cairo speech.
If Bush was still our president, I suspect they'd be burning US flags on the streets of Egypt.
And so will the name of the next president. If he is a good, moderate ally to US, his name and Obama's name will be forever linked. Agreed? I am using your own reasoning here.
If you have followed his comments, you know he supports democracy, and the state dept said that Mubarak's time may have come.
Stating the obvious, just before the final stoke, is not showing that we supported the Egyptian people all along, it makes us look like cheap opportunists.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Finn_Jarber
I think you are just way too eager to smear Obama in some way, but you have to remember that in the end this could make him look very good.
Letting the chips fall where they may, and then applauding whatever the final outcome may be, is not an act of greatness by our country, its a sign of indifference. We need to get away from supporting the temporary leaders, and start supporting the people.
Why should the Israelis fear a free Egypt, will the Egyptian people launch a war on Israel?
Not every fear has to be about war. Seeing your artificial "friend" anymore must be quite discomforting for Israel. Don't you think?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wapasha
If we always support the people of Egypt, they will understand if we give their country aid. We always need to support the people, because they will always be there; leaders come and go, but our relationship with the people should always be the same. Which is why we could give financial aid, and other forms of aid, while still being critical of Mubarak's policies and actions.
It appalls me that for "conservatives", sending tax payers dollars is a great idea but spend it here, and the Americans benefiting from it are the undesirables, do-nothing-piece-of-trash. But even looking past it, money can't buy everything, and especially peace. It is natural for people to take control of their own land.
If Bush was still our president, I suspect they'd be burning US flags on the streets of Egypt.
Nice speech, but it means nothing if all the flowery rhetoric is not followed by actions after the teleprompter is turned off.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
