Originally Posted by actor

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/

Originally Posted by RichieLion

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/

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

Originally Posted by actor

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.

Originally Posted by actor

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.

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'.

Originally Posted by ijusluvit

A national survey of university professors has already placed him (Obama) as the 15th most effective President in history..

University Professors???

Originally Posted by RichieLion

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".

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.

Originally Posted by djplong

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.

Originally Posted by RichieLion

...Barack Obama, is abandoning our strategic ally, Hosni Mubarak, and asking for an orderly transition to "democratic" rule....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....I have to conclude that this is Obama's plan...

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.

Originally Posted by dklassen

...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....

...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.

Originally Posted by Villages Kahuna

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.

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?

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.