Obama giving us another Iran with his abandonment of Mubarak
 

In a similar situation in the past the most failed President in American History, Jimmy Carter, abandoned our country's ally, the Shah of Iran, and in effect facilitated the transformation of Iran into the anti-American Islamic state that it is. A country that causes our nation untold and continuous grief in world affairs.

Now our current President, Barack Obama, is abandoning our strategic ally, Hosni Mubarak, and asking for an orderly transition to "democratic" rule. This translates into another anti-American Islamic State and one even bigger and more powerful that our enemy Iran.

This shows the incompetence and naivety of this bumbler-in-chief who would, in the name of political correctness and idiotic and impossible attempts to gain points with Islamic anti-American regimes, cast aside our biggest and steadiest ally of 30+ years in the Middle-East region.

This is not the way to continue America's place in the world as the leading super-power, but the way to destroy that image. I have to conclude that this is Obama's plan.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/...1?pageNumber=2

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Foreign...-under-the-bus

One more link to prove my point: http://www.haaretz.com/news/internat...barak-1.340168

Goes to show how little you're watching.

Hard-line Islamists are a minority in Egypt. The largest opposition to Mubarak is a party that is described as akin to the ruling party in Turkey - which is decided secular especially when compared to the theocracies out there.

MUSLIM BROTHERHOOD!!! You believe what you want, but MUSLIM BROTHERHOOD!!! Give me a break.

http://www.nationalreview.com/articl...rew-c-mccarthy

Umm.. the Muslim Brotherhood said they would support El-Baradei. Why? Because they would no longer be 'banned' (though the news reports I've read say they were "unofficially tolerated").

The guy in charge would be El Baradei.

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/ar...med_elbaradei/

Yeah. Real radical there. ElBaradei is NOT the Muslim Brotherhood.

I apologize in advance for this sounding demeaning but try not to listen to just the hysteria. OF COURSE when you start to depose a dictator there are going to be SOME fundamentalists trying to take advantage of the situation!

I agree with you RichieLion. I apologize in advance for sounding so demeaning, but naivete has reached epidemic proportions.


From an article in the Washington Post speaking about the Brotherhood, under the headline, “Muslim Brotherhood says it is only a minor player in Egyptian protests":

"It is not the organization of radical jihadists that it is sometimes made out to be. But its caution in dealing with Mubarak has made it appear recently that it is more concerned with protecting itself than with improving the nation."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn..._world/mideast

Do you really think that the extremist minority in Egypt is going to take over when the very middle class that is marching in the streets is ALSO chanting that they don't want to be another Iran?

This isn't 1978. There is no Ayatollah coming back from exile. There *is* a educated moderate coming back in El Baradei.

It's hardly naivete. It's looking at ALL the players in Egypt.

Please wipe the sleep out of your eyes and see what is happening all over the Middle East and Europe. You're not doing your research on the Muslim Brotherhood and other radical Islamic groups. The Muslim Brotherhood is going to form the new regime, if they get their chance with El Baradei, who is no friend of the West.

Oh, and about your remark that you're not being naive about the consequences of Egypt's crisis and the rise of the Muslim Brotherhood; how about reading this?

http://www.jpost.com/Headlines/Article.aspx?id=206130

Mubarak
 

Hosni Mubarak has been an unpredictable ally. He has played our foes as well as us. It is not a surprise that al Qeada ostensibly began in Egypt as he intentionally ignored the anti-Semitism and anti-Westernism propaganda being espoused by Muslim clerics. No one knows on what side this will all fall. What is important is that America should continue to be consistent in its belief of a free domocracy and protection of human rights. Obama did miss a very important opportunity with Iran and I have little faith given his administration will capitalize on the opportunities that could, if planned right, open in Egypt. Clearly Mohammed ElBaradei favors the Muslim Brotherhood and Turkey's prime minister Tayyip Erdogan both of which do not bode well for us. Time will tell

Gee, it looks like Iran's leadership, notably it's foreign ministry, also believes that the uprising in Egypt will lead to an Islamic Republic. How about that?

http://af.reuters.com/article/egyptN...13756420110201

It also appears that Benjamin Netanyahu, the prime minister of Israel and, I would argue, someone with their ear to the ground of the Egyptian situation, also is in fear of the coming an Islamic takeover of Egypt. Son of a gun!!

http://au.news.yahoo.com/a/-/austral...over-in-egypt/

And I always thought that Israel
 

is our best friend in the middle east. Silly me. Also, you completely misrepresent the facts about what is happening in Egypt. Coming from you though, I'm not surprised. At least you're consistent.

Prejudice is Blinding
 

The obvious motive of the author of this thread, and essentially all of his others, is simply to find another excuse to bash the President. To hell with objectivity, or in this case considering all of the factors which are involved in the US taking a formal stand on the situation in Egypt.

In addition to those who have already exposed enough of the author's faulty reasoning to the point of embarrassment, I would add that the the Saudis and the Jordanians have a strong voice in shaping our to policy toward Egypt as well, and so far, the President has successfully kept from infuriating them. Or does our author still think that none of these other countries matter much?

So not only do I suggest again that this this forum be civil, but that posters concentrate more on facts rather than sophomoric character assassination.

Did you read any of the newspaper articles posted or are you just going to have an uniformed opinion?

You better read up on Jordan; they're also falling as we speak.

My general response to this post is that I have not seen much of "character assassination." on this board. I am and have been opposed to almost everything this president stands for, and his not telling the truth. For that I am called a racist and other things....I apologize, but the man has done nothing but talk and worry about himself since he began campaigning and it has followed into the WH !

The ME is in turmoil...how you can deny that is beyond me. I do not blame him for this totally, but I cant help but wonder about people like you who can find no fault with this man despite the evidence of lying and manipulating !

HOWEVER, I will give this President credit and say he has grown as relates to terrorism. While many still to this day criticize the previous administration for "using" terrorism and pooh poohed the threat, I believe this president has learned it is real. What brings this to mind today is the Wikileaks documents that I just read about in the Vancouver paper that says...

"Al-Qaida is on the verge of producing radioactive weapons after sourcing nuclear material and recruiting rogue scientists to build "dirty" bombs, according to leaked diplomatic documents.

A leading atomic regulator has privately warned that the world stands on the brink of a "nuclear 9/11".

http://www.vancouversun.com/news/Qai...104/story.html

The ME has got to be addressed and not with an intellectual exercise !

I wonder if our former President's lies
 

about wmd's bothered you at all? It seems to me that starting a war based on a lie is a pretty serious offense. I have a feeling that you were not bothered at all.

Just Saw Mitt Romney
 

being interviewed on tv, and he basically endorsed the course of action Obama is following vis a vis the situation in Egypt. I wonder what he sees that the original poster failed to understand?

What the "original poster" understands is that the Middle East and parts of Europe are falling before the Islamic onslaught. The cries for "democracy" in the Middle East region that have inflamed their "students" and the ignorants in their midst (and apparently in ours) are being backed by an "alliance" of radical Islamic organizations (The Muslim Brotherhood, for one) and the Socialist activist organizations here in the U.S. and abroad.

Mubarak is a bad guy and a brutal dictator, but he kept Egypt in line for more than 30 years and right now is not the greatest time for this ally to fall.

I'm not the only one in the world who believes this is Obama's "Jimmy Carter moment". History will mark Obama as the President who "lost Egypt".

http://thehill.com/opinion/columnist...s-losing-egypt

http://www.whitehousedossier.com/201...carter-moment/

http://www.irishcentral.com/story/ne...114841164.html

http://www3.washingtontimes.com/news...-jimmy-carter/

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/...ment-in-egypt/

Typical of you to use
 

right wing columnists like Dick Morris and conservative publications to support your theories. You obviously never read anyone with even a hint of objectivity.

facts are facts, whatever the source and you're grasping at straws now because you have no knowledgeable opinion to offer.

You really need to get a grip.....the previous president dates back OVER TWO YEARS..nobody is discussing him.

Also, my post was only in response to your character comment. Not worth posting to you as you continue to live in the past and defend only party..have a nice day

Bucco,

Your own quotes belie your conclusion that there isn't really "character assassination" here.

"I apologize, but the man has done nothing but talk and worry about himself since he began campaigning and it has followed into the WH."

This is your quote, just a few posts above, and of course there have been many, many others in your previous remarks. Your continual reference to the President "lying", etc. are extreme and inflammatory.

The 'man' is not perfect, but his short legacy is already impressive. Forget the fact that a national survey of university professors has already placed him as the 15th most effective President in history. My last post about the President in 2010 asked for comments on what I described as impressive leadership of the Congress, enacting significant legislation in the last month on the year. Not a single negative comment was made to my suggestion. It seems virtually everyone recognizes that some important progress was made in that historic period.

I apologize, but it seems like blanket indictments like the one you made above demonstrate that you just can't quite get over your dislike for the man. You say you want to give him credit for some things, then you restate the blanket indictments. That, sir, is 'character assassination'.

University Professors???:1rotfl:

It's not for us to decide when Mubarak goes. That's between the people of Egypt and their dictator. The people's wishes seem to be quite clear and Mubarak is turning an ALMOST deaf ear.

Also, keep in mind that the Muslim Brotherhood of Egypt isn't the same as other chapters in other countries. For one, the Brotherhood in Egypt has renounced violence. Yeah, I know, talk is cheap and who REALLY knows what the future will bring..

But the fact of the matter is that we cannot claim to want to spread freedom and democracy around the world and then turn our backs when an inconvenient dictator has a popular uprising against him. We don't exactly have a lot of "street cred" in the Middle East - witness what happend to the Kurds in northern Iraq after the first Iraq War - they got flattened when we failed to deliver on our promise of support if they rose up against Saddam.

oooohhh; it's a different, kinder and gentler Muslim Brotherhood..... I see. What unadulterated nonsense. I can't understand how you can believe anything you've just said.
http://en.rian.ru/world/20110203/162***368.html

In 1917 Alexander Kerensky pushed out the Tsar, only to be unseated by Lenin and Stalins communist regime. That worked out well.

In 1918 the first republic of Germany was established and was replaced in short order by the communists and Nazis.

Like I started this thread with my reference to Tehran in 1979. The Shah flees for his life, semi-liberal Mehdi Bazargan leads the nation for a few short months, and then the Ayatollah grips the throat of the country. 32 years later, winning a long civil war they beat off the democratic revolt of 2009 and the people are still not free. Jimmy Carter backing Barzagan was a brilliant stroke, huh?

Democratic revolutions normally don't lead to democracy. The American Experience was the exception to the rule, along with some recent successes in Eastern Europe. The lessons of history is that you and other democracy dreamers must abandon a naive presumption that the end of Egypt's revolution will be government of, by, and for the people

The Middle East is being overrun by the radical Islamists. Anyone in their way better be willing to die to stop them because they are all too willing to die for their twisted religious ambitions,

When they finally get around to the inevitable attempt to wipe Israel off the face of the map, what is the U.S. to do at that time?

The radical Muslim alliances are never going to make peace with the infidel. Their religion forbids it, they believe. They will kill anyone who stands in the way of their twisted religious view and are anxious to die martyrs (at least the gullible congregants are).

The events in Egypt and Jordan and Tunisa are bringing that day much closer.

Can't Have It Both Ways
 

I don't agree. I don't think the U.S. can have it both ways. I don't think we can loudly endorse principles like personal freedom, the rule of law, democratic rule, religious freedom, women's rights, etc. and then endorse and support regimes who remain in power by violating all those principles. Hosni Mubarik is an example of that, as was the Shah and even Saddam Hussein. As a country, we either believe in those principles or we don't. I don't think you can say one thing and then support dictators who stand for the opposite and maintain any degree of political or moral leadership.

If, as you suggest, we insert ourselves into an Egyptian civil war in order to prop up a dictator who has acted as an "ally", then we'd better stop proclaiming all those principles that we say are so important to us. Let's be realistic, our alliance with Egypt and peace between that powerful country and Israel as well as the protection of the Suez Canal through which so much of the oil we use flows has been bought and paid for over thirty years with foreign aid payments, principally to provide the Mubarik administration with lots of advanced military equipment. Now a broad base of Egyptians are rising up to resist the jackboot of Mubarik repression and brutality. We could easily side with him and assist him in quashing the uprising, which he could almost certainly do with a predictable amount of dictatorial brutality.

But if that's the position we took, then what can we say about all our high-minded moral principles that in another breath we say are so dear to us?

I don't think you can have it both ways.

No matter what happens, we better start drilling for more of our own oil and soon. Alternative energy is all fine and good but today we run on oil and that's a fact.

What's happening in the middle east could have an enormous effect on our economy and national security.

Even though a court overturned Obama's moratorium on off-shore oil drilling the moratorium still exists which in my opinion is unforgivable. Almost seems like Obama want's us to take another huge hit.

Not tapping into our resources here and leaving us vulnerable to middle east volatility should be a crime.

Instead of a Presidential order to stop drilling, how about one to start drilling?

Who knows whats going to happen in Egypt but I know what happened in Iran and it wasn't good. The situation looks very similar.

You Got That Right. But...
 

...I'd say that we not only have to increase the domestically-provided proportion of oil that we use, but we'd better quickly figure out ways how to use less of it.

That's tough to do in an economy and population that's actually growing. I'd go so far as to say that both increasing the amount of oil we produce domestically as well as incenting our population to use less oil are both objectives that need to be acted on.

I agree. Not sure how we actually conserver more oil but to some degree it needs to be done. More clean coal maybe? I don't think Obama like that either.

The alternative very well is going to be the entire Middle East Region falling one by one to the radical Islamic revolutionary onslaught and becoming a massive military presence with the capability and the global power of imposing their faith and their Sharia law on all the infidels of the world (of which we are the prime target), or just killing us all in the name of Allah.

I guess that will be OK though if you believe they democratically decided to form their radical state and democratically believe that Israel and the "Great Satan" are an affront to the glory of Allah and must be eliminated.

We believe in freedom, so I guess we have to allow our enemies who have sworn to destroy us to organize and do so. It's only fair.

(Sorry, but I would rather not!!)

We went to Iraq supposedly to spread Democracy to the Middle East. Countless billions and many deaths later we have not succeeded. Yet when the people of a country openly protest and are killed or imprisoned because they want democracy some of you demonize them and want our country to support a vicious dictator. Can someone tell me the difference between Hussein and Muberik?

Are you serious? Not that I liked either one but what a question.

Remember when Hussein unleashed chemical weapons on his own population? Dozens of UN sanction violations, the invasion of Kuwait, his two sons that terrorized the local population, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc.

And lets not forget when his own people hung him by the neck on national TV.

Until such time as the politicians change the priority from
 

what it is today to putting the well being of the USA and it's people FIRST....there will be no change in our dependency and means of sourcing oil from outside the USA.

What a side benefit there would be to offsetting the billions of dollars being shipped to the middle east with those same billions being spent here domestically. Not to mention the employment that would follow increased domestic oil production....renewing refineries...incent renewable energy source production and the related manufacturing of equipment required to make the new equipment.

How about some real spending that results in REAL new employment opportunities, that reduces our dependence on foreign oil.

Until such time as the volatility in the middle east actually causes a REAL interruption in the supply of oil it will remain business as usual for those invested in the oil industries and the owners of the mid east supplies. And when that does happen...and it will happen...we will find out that the solution is not a short term fix. Even the bubble here in TV will be impacted....severly, and the answer is not you can get around in ones golf cart...to go where? to buy what?

btk

Our enemies need only wait for the trend of the demise of America to continue. We need $5and $6 a gallon gasoline to happen sooner than later.

I am all for reducing our dependence on foreign oil.Eventually it will cost us. I just dont understand why we cant do both oil and really get alternative research going. No matter how much we think we have oil is a limited resource. Remember as a country we use more oil than most of the world combined. That must stop.Oil consevation,alternative research,sun,wind,anything that helps.

dk: I couldn't agree with you more. If you hadn't brought up Saddam's use of chemical weapons, I would have. It doesn't make Mubarak a good guy - just not quite as evil as Saddam - still evil.