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.
Carter lost Iran by supporting the Shah despite his overwhelming unpopularity. The uprising that occurred there was very similar to the one in Eygpt, except with US support behind the Shah, the protesters saw the US as their enemy. Students took US hostages, and when Khomeini stepped in with his extreme anti-US rhetoric and support for the hostage takers, it was music to the ears of the reformists.
We risk losing Eygpt the same way by supporting Muburak. If a popular opposition leader begins speaking out against the US, we will lose one of our most important allies. If we wait until after Muburak is deposed before supporting the protesters, it will make us look like opportunists trying to save face.
"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.
The obvious weakness of this American President is of course responsible IMO.
"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.
An Israeli publication complaining that America isn't doing enough to secure Israel?
The obvious weakness of this American President is of course responsible IMO.
People need to stop thinking american Presidents are worldwide omnipresent emperors.
Presidents have a lot less leverage than people like to think. Even William Buckley (a conservative favorite) claim that neocons have commited intellectual suicide by overrestimating the reach of the USA (and intervening in Iraq).
And it's very ironic how the same people who think the government should reduce in size because it is incompetent also except the president to fix everything, from the economy to stability in far away countries.
As if the US president is supposed to be some kind of collective world-daddy. While the US president is the leader of the heaviest nation, his executive power is quite limited compared to other world leaders.
Not everything is about the US. Sometimes it's good to mind your own business.
People need to stop thinking american Presidents are worldwide omnipresent emperors.
Presidents have a lot less leverage than people like to think. Even William Buckley (a conservative favorite) claim that neocons have commited intellectual suicide by overrestimating the reach of the USA (and intervening in Iraq).
And it's very ironic how the same people who think the government should reduce in size because it is incompetent also except the president to fix everything, from the economy to stability in far away countries.
As if the US president is supposed to be some kind of collective world-daddy. While the US president is the leader of the heaviest nation, his executive power is quite limited compared to other world leaders.
Not everything is about the US. Sometimes it's good to mind your own business.
From the middle east to healthcare, many of us recognize the inherent incompetence of a centrally planned government and would like for it to quit minding everyone else's business.
Speaking of...how is the weather in Canada?
Obama could be the one overlooking the destruction of Egypt, Democracy in the USA, Iran could go Nuclear with weapons and there could be a Korean war (to begin with). Weakness in a President isn't good for us or the world.
Keep bowing everywhere Barry.
Location: By the sea, by the sea, by the beautiful sea
68,329 posts, read 54,400,252 times
Reputation: 40736
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frankie117
Carter lost Iran by supporting the Shah despite his overwhelming unpopularity. The uprising that occurred there was very similar to the one in Eygpt, except with US support behind the Shah, the protesters saw the US as their enemy. Students took US hostages, and when Khomeini stepped in with his extreme anti-US rhetoric and support for the hostage takers, it was music to the ears of the reformists.
We risk losing Eygpt the same way by supporting Muburak. If a popular opposition leader begins speaking out against the US, we will lose one of our most important allies. If we wait until after Muburak is deposed before supporting the protesters, it will make us look like opportunists trying to save face.
(Where's the Prime Directive when you need it?)
Uh, in order to lose something you'd first need to possess it. Just how was Iran/is Egypt ever been America's to lose?
What would happen if the canal were to be taken over???
By whom?
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.
Get serious...
