Before Obama Egypt was an Ally. Now... not so much.

[Murf76]

The video shows clearly that he's not talking about "mutual defensive treaties". It's white-washing from the White House again.

 

[koshergrl]

http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...in-is-egypt-an-ally-or-not-does-he-know.html?

Merge thread plz?

 

[Warrior102]

Jesus - what a fucking idiot Obama is/was/has been - White House clarifies Obama

 

[jgarden]

Before Obama Egypt was an Ally. Now... not so much.

It was Mubarak who was the "ally" of the US - something for which this dictator was handsomely compensated to keep him in power.

Hosni Mubarak was somewhat like the Shah of Iran, loved by America but in their own countries ..... not so much!

 

[Murf76]

Before Obama Egypt was an Ally. Now... not so much.

It was Mubarak who was the "ally" of the US - something for which this dictator was handsomely compensated to keep him in power.

Hosni Mubarak was somewhat like the Shah of Iran, loved by America but in their own countries ..... not so much!

And Obama's supporters try to claim he's not Jimmy Carter's second coming.

 

[Murf76]

http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...in-is-egypt-an-ally-or-not-does-he-know.html?

Merge thread plz?

It's good. But it doesn't mention Obama and his enormous failure by name.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Have we entered into an alliances with the new government of Egypt?

 

[koshergrl]

Whatever you do, don't ask Obama because he has no idea.

 

[Conservative]

Have we entered into an alliances with the new government of Egypt?

Do we normally drop alliances when a government changes? When Tony Blair was no longer PM, did we drop our alliance with GB?

 

[Polk]

Have we entered into an alliances with the new government of Egypt?

Do we normally drop alliances when a government changes? When Tony Blair was no longer PM, did we drop our alliance with GB?

I don't agree with the argument Carb is trying to make, but there is a difference between changes in government (in the British sense of the word) and changes in regime.

 

[bobcollum]

Acting like what?

Acting like the self-righteous police of the world. Setting up bases, launching attacks from unmanned drones, chalking up the death of innocents as collateral damage, amongst other things.

Would Americans be okay with that if another nation said it wasn't as bad as it seems?

Should I assume you agreed with the rest of the lengthy post?

"The self-righteous police of the world"? Is that how you see it?
It's hard to comment on your entire post without knowing what your specific objections are.

I just named three specific objections, why don't you start with those. Of the three which ones, if hypothetically occurring, would create anger amongst the innocent civilians in the US?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Have we entered into an alliances with the new government of Egypt?

Do we normally drop alliances when a government changes? When Tony Blair was no longer PM, did we drop our alliance with GB?

And what treaty alliance did we have with Mubarak's Egypt????

 

[Mustang]

This is as good a thread to say this as any, although I'm sure I'll see the need to repeat it elsewhere.

After we were attacked on 9-11, eventually Bush explained that the reason we were attacked was because 'they' hated our freedom. I couldn't help but ask myself what the HELL was Bush talking about. What nonsense.

The REAL reason the rest of the world hates us is because we (meaning our gov't) incessantly talks ABOUT freedom, but we support dictators and despots who oppress, and abuse, and even KILL their own people because they 'play ball' with us. Now, MAYBE that was understandable in the days of the Cold War when tensions between the West and the East were heightened by thousands of ICBMs being pointed at one another, but that's not been the case for twenty years now. No, those despots we prop up sell us us their oil or other natural resources at bargain basement prices, and WE sell their people down river simply so that we can live in ever greater comfort.

So, when the people of Egypt and other ME nations rise up to throw off the shackles of their oppressors, what is the response of those freedom-loving conservatives? They want us to prop up the dictator because dictatorship is their preferred form of gov't.

If you don't believe that, take a look at how they approach governing THIS country. They HATE compromise. They LOATHE bipartisanship. They don't want to work with the president or the Democrats, and they're not interested in reaching a consensus agreement. The budget battle last year that resulted in a ratings downgrade was proof of that. No, conservatives want to take over the gov't and force their agenda on everyone else...just like the dictatorship of Mubarak that they so admired.

 

[Murf76]

Acting like the self-righteous police of the world. Setting up bases, launching attacks from unmanned drones, chalking up the death of innocents as collateral damage, amongst other things.

Would Americans be okay with that if another nation said it wasn't as bad as it seems?

Should I assume you agreed with the rest of the lengthy post?

"The self-righteous police of the world"? Is that how you see it?
It's hard to comment on your entire post without knowing what your specific objections are.

I just named three specific objections, why don't you start with those. Of the three which ones, if hypothetically occurring, would create anger amongst the innocent civilians in the US?

Typically, when we're conducting military operations within the borders of someone else's country, setting up bases, etc, we've either had their permission to do so or we've conquered that country in war. Now, of course NO ONE wants to see the tragedy of "collateral damage", and of course we're sad and sorry whenever that happens. It's understandable that people get upset by that. The only recent examples I can think of where we've made incursions though would be in Pakistan, like the one where Obama ordered Navy Seals to get bin Laden. As far as drones go, I don't weep for terrorists, but I also don't think we should strike Americans without due process, or kill if we can capture. But there again, it's Obama with a "hit list" and apparently more willing to kill than to house POW's.

See, this is what I don't understand about Obama's supporters... he's out-Bush'd Bush in all the things they claimed to hate. And yet, they worship on.

 

[bobcollum]

"The self-righteous police of the world"? Is that how you see it?
It's hard to comment on your entire post without knowing what your specific objections are.

I just named three specific objections, why don't you start with those. Of the three which ones, if hypothetically occurring, would create anger amongst the innocent civilians in the US?

Typically, when we're conducting military operations within the borders of someone else's country, setting up bases, etc, we've either had their permission to do so or we've conquered that country in war. Now, of course NO ONE wants to see the tragedy of "collateral damage", and of course we're sad and sorry whenever that happens. It's understandable that people get upset by that. The only recent examples I can think of where we've made incursions though would be in Pakistan, like the one where Obama ordered Navy Seals to get bin Laden. As far as drones go, I don't weep for terrorists, but I also don't think we should strike Americans without due process, or kill if we can capture. But there again, it's Obama with a "hit list" and apparently more willing to kill than to house POW's.

See, this is what I don't understand about Obama's supporters... he's out-Bush'd Bush in all the things they claimed to hate. And yet, they worship on.

You sound as calm and rational as someone that hasn't really considered the reality of the other perspective.

I don't think they'll care that you understand how tough that must be, it didn't even work on me.

 

[Murf76]

This is as good a thread to say this as any, although I'm sure I'll see the need to repeat it elsewhere.

After we were attacked on 9-11, eventually Bush explained that the reason we were attacked was because 'they' hated our freedom. I couldn't help but ask myself what the HELL was Bush talking about. What nonsense.

The REAL reason the rest of the world hates us is because we (meaning our gov't) incessantly talks ABOUT freedom, but we support dictators and despots who oppress, and abuse, and even KILL their own people because they 'play ball' with us. Now, MAYBE that was understandable in the days of the Cold War when tensions between the West and the East were heightened by thousands of ICBMs being pointed at one another, but that's not been the case for twenty years now. No, those despots we prop up sell us us their oil or other natural resources at bargain basement prices, and WE sell their people down river simply so that we can live in ever greater comfort.

So, when the people of Egypt and other ME nations rise up to throw off the shackles of their oppressors, what is the response of those freedom-loving conservatives? They want us to prop up the dictator because dictatorship is their preferred form of gov't.

If you don't believe that, take a look at how they approach governing THIS country. They HATE compromise. They LOATHE bipartisanship. They don't want to work with the president or the Democrats, and they're not interested in reaching a consensus agreement. The budget battle last year that resulted in a ratings downgrade was proof of that. No, conservatives want to take over the gov't and force their agenda on everyone else...just like the dictatorship of Mubarak that they so admired.

Well, first off, Barack Obama had a budget deal worked out with Boehner that would've likely gone through, had he not got greedy at the end and pushed for higher taxes. So, go to your Supreme Leader with that complaint.

And in terms of Freedom in dictatorships, you might have a point if that was what they wanted. Turns out, what they wanted was the "freedom" to oppress people in the name of their religion, as we see in their calls to limit OUR freedom of speech and in the murders of our citizens.

Don't mistake "democracy" for the kind of freedom we associate with guaranteed individual citizen rights. Democracy is nothing but mob rule. It's 51% of the people tyrannizing the other 49%.

 

[Murf76]

I just named three specific objections, why don't you start with those. Of the three which ones, if hypothetically occurring, would create anger amongst the innocent civilians in the US?

Typically, when we're conducting military operations within the borders of someone else's country, setting up bases, etc, we've either had their permission to do so or we've conquered that country in war. Now, of course NO ONE wants to see the tragedy of "collateral damage", and of course we're sad and sorry whenever that happens. It's understandable that people get upset by that. The only recent examples I can think of where we've made incursions though would be in Pakistan, like the one where Obama ordered Navy Seals to get bin Laden. As far as drones go, I don't weep for terrorists, but I also don't think we should strike Americans without due process, or kill if we can capture. But there again, it's Obama with a "hit list" and apparently more willing to kill than to house POW's.

See, this is what I don't understand about Obama's supporters... he's out-Bush'd Bush in all the things they claimed to hate. And yet, they worship on.

You sound as calm and rational as someone that hasn't really considered the reality of the other perspective.

I don't think they'll care that you understand how tough that must be, it didn't even work on me.

I'll endeavor to be more hysterical and irrational next time.

 

[bobcollum]

Typically, when we're conducting military operations within the borders of someone else's country, setting up bases, etc, we've either had their permission to do so or we've conquered that country in war. Now, of course NO ONE wants to see the tragedy of "collateral damage", and of course we're sad and sorry whenever that happens. It's understandable that people get upset by that. The only recent examples I can think of where we've made incursions though would be in Pakistan, like the one where Obama ordered Navy Seals to get bin Laden. As far as drones go, I don't weep for terrorists, but I also don't think we should strike Americans without due process, or kill if we can capture. But there again, it's Obama with a "hit list" and apparently more willing to kill than to house POW's.

See, this is what I don't understand about Obama's supporters... he's out-Bush'd Bush in all the things they claimed to hate. And yet, they worship on.

You sound as calm and rational as someone that hasn't really considered the reality of the other perspective.

I don't think they'll care that you understand how tough that must be, it didn't even work on me.

I'll endeavor to be more hysterical and irrational next time.

The point is a lack of consideration for any interests other than our own is what directs our foreign policy, and it's a recipe for disaster.

It shouldn't be a surprise when things go shitty because of it.

The only way I can think of to make you realize that is if you try to visualize something similar happening to us here, as hard as it may be to.

 

[Salt Jones]

When Barack Obama was sworn in, Egypt was our ally in the Middle East. Now, even from his own mouth, it can no longer be considered to be so. Video: Obama On Egypt: We Don't "Consider Them An Ally, But We Don't Consider Them An Enemy" | RealClearPolitics

Even MSNBC can't cover for Barack Obama's LOSS of Egypt, as we see in this reporter's reaction to Obama's statement that Egypt can't be considered an ally:

[youtube]vXXToNNNoZc[/youtube]

The bottom line is the bottom line. That's why we call it that. In 2008, we had a reliable relationship with Egypt, today, they're throwing rocks at our embassy and pulling down our flag. And IF the mob could get into the building, I have no doubt in my mind that our State Dept. staff there would meet the same fate as their counterparts in Libya.

Barack Obama is a foreign policy disaster, who has presided over the religious radicalization of Middle East, lost our relationships there, and is off campaigning today.

Do Egyptians have the right to self-determination?

 

[Murf76]

You sound as calm and rational as someone that hasn't really considered the reality of the other perspective.

I don't think they'll care that you understand how tough that must be, it didn't even work on me.

I'll endeavor to be more hysterical and irrational next time.

The point is a lack of consideration for any interests other than our own is what directs our foreign policy, and it's a recipe for disaster.

It shouldn't be a surprise when things go shitty because of it.

The only way I can think of to make you realize that is if you try to visualize something similar happening to us here, as hard as it may be to.

I don't have a difficult time with empathy. I empathize rather readily actually, so I get how ugly conflict can be.

Here's the deal though, we don't elect our leaders to see to the needs of other countries. We elect them to see to ours. But since we ARE a good and decent people, as I mentioned before, what's good for us is oftentimes good for the other guy too. It might seem cold-blooded to say we should've supported Mubarak. He was a real nasty piece of work in alot of ways, that's a given. But we weren't REALLY looking at a choice between supporting a dictator or supporting freedom. We were looking at two different styles of yokes, one a secular dictatorship but stable, the other mob rule by religious zealots and un-stable. Shrunk down, it was a choice between stability and instability.

It's not really about being heartless and mean. These folks crave freedom same as we do. But they didn't have the apparatus in place to make that happen yet. And THAT is where we should have applied our diplomatic skills and pressure. That would've been the kind of win/win which benefits us both. Freedom and stability.