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.
Location: By the sea, by the sea, by the beautiful sea
68,330 posts, read 54,419,437 times
Reputation: 40736
Advertisements
Quote:
Originally Posted by TnHilltopper
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"
Just as long as we don't buy a Band-Aid for an American because that would be SOCIALISM!
"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.
"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.
We have supported a dictator in Egypt for 29 years and finally they are fed up with him. What blunt calls for democracy did Bush made to Egypt? As I remember it he gave them a 20 billion dollar bribe so they would support us in Iraq, and on top of that he gave them 1.3 billion annually so they would stick with us. Nah, all US presidents in the past 29 years are guilty of supporting a dictator, and I fear this will end up just like Iran. Thare is not much Obama can do about it.
But if you are willing to place blame, then are you willing to give credit? If Egypt gains a moderate president through elections, then will you say that Obama goes down in history books as the president who brought democracy to Egypt? Will you do that? Or will you only blame him in case it turns ugly?
I can see the OP's point - if Egypt goes radical islamic on Obama's watch, well that is serious.
If that is what the people of Egypt want, why the heck should America be poking its nose again? As I said last week in another thread, we hate to learn, don't we?
But if you are willing to place blame, then are you willing to give credit? If Egypt gains a moderate president through elections, then will you say that Obama goes down in history books as the president who brought democracy to Egypt? Will you do that? Or will you only blame him in case it turns ugly?
"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 real question is whether Obama is pro-Israel. The people of Egypt deserve a government of their choosing, but they also have to suffer the consequences. That also becomes our problem if it leads to chaos and unrest across the middle east. Israel might get testy and launch a pre-emptive strike. Terror organizations might try to take advantage of the situation.
This is like the game risk... Once Egypt falls then the middle east is beyond the tipping point. The next phase will likely be eastern Eurpoe vs western Europe. And then you also have Asia that is not exactly stable.
I'm going to retire in Tahiti.
If that is what the people of Egypt want, why the heck should America be poking its nose again? As I said last week in another thread, we hate to learn, don't we?
so you think that the US should sit back and let terrorists take over? Read your statement... that is what you are saying.
The real question is whether Obama is pro-Israel. The people of Egypt deserve a government of their choosing, but they also have to suffer the consequences. That also becomes our problem if it leads to chaos and unrest across the middle east. Israel might get testy and launch a pre-emptive strike. Terror organizations might try to take advantage of the situation.
This is like the game risk... Once Egypt falls then the middle east is beyond the tipping point. The next phase will likely be eastern Eurpoe vs western Europe. And then you also have Asia that is not exactly stable.
I'm going to retire in Tahiti.
The United States should only intervene in Israeli foreign policy when another country declares war on Israel. Then, as their ally, we would help to defend Israel.
Terrorism is a police matter. Let Israel worry about its own borders and security.
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.
It is one thing to diplomatically advocate for good relations with a government and a whole other thing to directly intervene in the internal affairs in order to illicit an outcome favorable to an ally, let alone ourselves.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TigerLily24
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.
This is American exceptionalism laid bare. This idea and belief that we, the United States have some God given right to interfere in other nations in order to best suit our needs and desires.
What if we were to discover that China had been secretly working towards fomenting a revolution in favor of some quasi socialist-communist government outcome favorable to China's interests, would we not object?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dd714
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.
If anything this shows the failure of the US foreign aid system that is employed in the Middle East. This concept of bribing or buying off governments cooperation in order to achieve some artificial calm at the expense of at least one population of people only goes so far. Now it is quite evident that the United States tax payer is going to have to bend over and open up his pockets to fork over added billions to ensure Israel's safety in the wake of instability that we artificially created in the first place.
If the Israeli's are concerned and worried, they should be and all the more reason they should have worked towards a more sound relationship with their neighbors and its people instead of bribing an oppressive semi-dictator-President to play nice while he kept his foot on the neck of his people. Blow back comes to mind.
Normally I very much enjoy Haaretz Newspaper and find it one of the most balanced and well measured newspapers in Israel, but this piece is a joke. Its implications that we the United States "lost" Egypt and that Jimmy Carter "lost" Iran implies that they were "ours" to lose.
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.
If anyone loses Egypt, it'll be Hosni Mubarak.
