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.
Some of you are so full of it--what are we supposed to do--go over there with NUKES to stop the protesters? I think the administration, and the rest of the world's leadership, is watching this just as closely as they can to see which way the wind is going to blow. If if looks like they're going to put in some kind of theocratic dictatorship that destroys our position there and completely destabilizes the region, then we potentially get involved (along with lots of other nations). If this turns into a move toward greater democracy, we don't. Did you notice that Clinton had pulled in all the ambassadors for a meeting? That was to map out a potential plan with other governments if need be.
I would hate to be so blinded by hate toward someone that I couldn't think with common sense and logic, and I think that's where lots of you are.
It is ALWAYS only a matter of time a horrible foreign policy comes back to bite us in the back. It did with Cuba, it did with Iran, it did with Iraq, it did with Afghanistan, it is doing with Pakistan. Add Egypt and Yemen to that count.
And, Israel should be scared, very scared. A free Egypt is not in its best interest.
He might not only be the president who lost Egypt, but also the whole Middle East.
As per usual, your posts make the least amount of sense of anyone on this board.
I'd love to know how one equated Obama and the U.S. with Egypt? I suppose our behaviour world wide for decades has given people the notion that we really are (and should be) the world's police force.
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?
Well, if you think it is incompetent domestically, why should it be responsible for fixing far away regions of the world (that nobody ever fixed before)?
Makes no sense. It's either one or the other. You can't demand a government to scale back and at the same time demand that it fixes every issue in the universe. This is quite popular with what I call fake conservatives who preach about a decentralized government but cry when the government is not fixing things entirely out of their reach. Basically, these are people who talk on both sides of the mouth and don't worry, we have them too in CAnada. Btw, the weather is cold, thank you.
A Egypt free of outside control and operating as a free republic is in everyone's best interest. We should use our doplomatic influence to help that end. We should keep our Army at home.
Egypt, like the other countries in the world, was never ours to lose. We are NOT entirely corporations and financiers. Their fate is dependant on their own business skills and, AFAIAC, are on their own.
A Egypt free of outside control and operating as a free republic is in everyone's best interest. We should use our doplomatic influence to help that end. We should keep our Army at home.
Egypt, like the other countries in the world, was never ours to lose. We are NOT of corporations and financiers. Their fate is dependant on their own business skills and, AFAIAC, are on their own.
BUT we have a whole lot to lose if we don't build a strong relationship with the new government. Like it or not, the world gets smaller and smaller all the time.
"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 Newspaper already blaming America's President for not ensuring their security by militarily intervening into the affairs of yet another country.
What gratitude, I guess we will complain on the back of yet another foreign aid check. "Dear Israel, we are sorry we didn't invade Egypt and install someone you prefer as dictator, to show how sorry, please accept a few billion US tax payer dollars that we just borrowed from China"
An Israeli Newspaper already blaming America's President for not ensuring their security by militarily intervening into the affairs of yet another country.
What gratitude, I guess we will complain on the back of yet another foreign aid check. "Dear Israel, we are sorry we didn't invade Egypt and install someone you prefer as dictator, to show how sorry, please accept a few billion US tax payer dollars that we just borrowed from China"
Great post. Israel can stick its complaints where the sun doesn't shine- we have our own issues to deal with, we do not exist to fight all of Israel's perceived battles. And on the topic of Egypt, if we stand on this whole "seeds of democracy" concept that the Bush administration dreamed up, then why would we NOT be in support of the protesters? They are trying to upend a dictator, to have more say in their government- isn't that exactly what we say we want in the middle east?
And Carter didn't LOSE Iran. We backed the Shah, and the Shah lost Iran. If anyone lost Iran, it was probably Ike with his CIA backed overthrow of a democratically elected government there.
It is exactly this attitude that any of these countries were/are ours to win or lose that got us into this mess to begin with.
I suppose everyone has forgotten that it was the U.S. that propped Saddam Hussein up to begin with and look how well that turned out.
I can see the OP's point - if Egypt goes radical islamic on Obama's watch, well that is serious. Egypt, besides Israel, has been one of our most stable allies in the middle east. And now are relations with Israel are strained (and you can directly blame Obama's foreign policy for that). It can also be said that Obama also missed his chance with the unrest in Iran against their government last year.
Sure, Obama has no right to interfere in Egyptian politics. But take a more realistic machevalian view - what happens in Eqypt WILL effect us here, and Obama is still the leader of a country that is seen as a world leader, not a follower. Their are reasons that protestors the world over typically have signs written in English. He is in almost a no win situation, indeed. But the fear is that if Mubarek collapses, the radical islamic element will take over and Egypt turns into an Iran.
Now, I was in Egypt a few months ago. I talked to some of the residents. This is what I find suprising, everyone was on pins and needles wondering what would happen when Mubarik kicks the bucket. The dude is 83 years old. A revolt was always simmering under the surface, waiting to errupt upon his death. But not before. So this is really suprising - Mubarek has been in office for 30 years, rules with an iron hand, survived some 6 assasination attempts. And, literally, every block of Cairo has dozens of police armed with heavy weapons - every block. This guy knows how to survive and deal with this (using some efficient and ruthless tactics). But now, the police and army have fallen back. Did he lose his army support? If he did, he's done. But - something tells me, he is going to hit back hard and this will be yesterday's news by next week, and the clean up won't be pretty. And the revolt ringleaders will be dealing in a jail cell with his police getting medieval on them.
I could be wrong. There are radical elements in Egypt, outlawed and kept in leash by Mubarik. But these elements can come to the surface in a power vacuum. Egyptian people are not like the rest of the Arab states however, they are functional, not particularly hard-core islamic, they don't have a partuclar anti-western viewpoint. 20% of their economy is from tourism, so many of the employed will not stand for the country turning into a Pakistan or Afhiganistan. I can't see Sharia law taking hold...but, it can happen. And if that happens, it will totally change the balance of power in the middle east. Either way, lets be realistic, just another currupt policitican will take his place.
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.
