Topic: Egypt (Read 7640 times)

12AX7 · « **on:** February 06, 2011, 05:06:53 AM »

Does anyone else find it embarrassing to see/hear a two-year president with no qualifying experience standing up telling Mubarack - a multiple-decades nation leader - what to do/not do? No wonder the world thinks the US is so arrogant. We are. Who the hell is Obama to 'suggest' what Mubarack, the Egyptian Army, and the citizens should do? His only previous experience was in STILL-crime-ridden, corrupted Chicago, yet he stands there and preaches to Egypt like he's some sort of wizened sage.

sociald1077 · « **Reply #1 on:** February 06, 2011, 06:22:45 AM »

Because every other president would do the exact same thing.

Not saying its right either way, but there's no doubt that it would happen.

12AX7 · « **Reply #2 on:** February 06, 2011, 12:51:34 PM »

Definitely. But they almost all have enough experience to qualify a Suggestive statement (ie:, "here's whatcha do..."). IMO he should stick to supportive comments ("...we wish for the best outcome for the Egyptian people, their government, and their nation") or simply be quiet.

12AX7 · « **Reply #3 on:** February 06, 2011, 04:39:47 PM »

Plus, I'm venting; and who's an easier target than someone you don't like anyway.

LuciferSam · « **Reply #4 on:** February 06, 2011, 05:03:18 PM »

Quote from: 12AX7 on February 06, 2011, 05:06:53 AM

... like he's some sort of wizened sage.

Clear_Runway · « **Reply #5 on:** February 06, 2011, 07:41:15 PM »

you don't need to be older than someone to tell them to stop being a dick and respect some human rights for once.

12AX7 · « **Reply #6 on:** February 06, 2011, 10:48:34 PM »

What does age have to do with it?

Clear_Runway · « **Reply #7 on:** February 06, 2011, 10:50:15 PM »

or more experienced. whatever.

12AX7 · « **Reply #8 on:** February 06, 2011, 10:59:34 PM »

Pressing for human rights is one thing; telling another nation leader he should go - and NOW is another. Don't forget Mubarack is supposedly an ally of ours. Of our government, I mean. I understand he isn't the best option for the Egyptian people, and apparently not what they want; so we (Obama) should just hush for now; especially when we (Obama) has no experience in how to handle a situation such as Egypt finds itself.

Banshee · « **Reply #9 on:** February 07, 2011, 10:56:23 AM »

It's perfectly consistent with the current policy of interference in foreign affairs that's been the norm lately.

Oh, I'm sorry-- you were talking about Obama? These presidents all seem to run together these days.

Demosthenes · « **Reply #10 on:** February 07, 2011, 11:07:16 AM »

Quote from: Banshee on February 07, 2011, 10:56:23 AM

It's perfectly consistent with the current policy of interference in foreign affairs that's been the norm lately.

Oh, I'm sorry-- you were talking about Obama? These presidents all seem to run together these days.

^

Vespertine · « **Reply #11 on:** February 07, 2011, 11:22:56 AM »

Quote from: Banshee on February 07, 2011, 10:56:23 AM

It's perfectly consistent with the current policy of interference in foreign affairs that's been the norm lately.

Oh, I'm sorry-- you were talking about Obama? These presidents all seem to run together these days.

Also ^

I don't see how it's any different than ordering troops into Iraq to topple a dictator and install a U.S. friendly democratic-type government. Oh, wait, I do see a difference. Obama's not actually ordering troops into Egypt to topple that dictator and install a U.S. friendly democratic-type government. He's offering his opinion that a dictator step down now for the general good and safety of the people living in that country.

12AX7 · « **Reply #12 on:** February 07, 2011, 11:49:55 AM »

What's your point? Please have a point. The whole "Bush did it too/worse" is old, and currently irrelevant.
I disagreed with the Iraqi war as well. That person isn't currently running things.

12AX7 · « **Reply #13 on:** February 07, 2011, 11:54:15 AM »

Also, let me get this correct; you're saying that since Bush was wrong, Obama's right?

12AX7 · « **Reply #14 on:** February 07, 2011, 12:16:59 PM »

I don't feel he shouldn't be involved diplomatically; but the statements I heard he's saying what Mubarack should do, what the Egyptian people should do, what the Egyptian military should do; and that they should do it now, come together and work for a solution blah blah blah. I'm saying he should simply be quiet; or be ambiguously supportive (a forte of his).

As I understand it, the Egyptian people don't WANT to 'come together' and 'work things out' with the current government; and apparently the military doesn't really want to either. As I understand it, the people want him gone, and the military more or less supports the People and takes that role very seriously.

We support(ed) Mubarack for years as an ally
We supposedly support democracy and the will of the People worldwide
Speaking in a dictating (not 'dictatorial') fashion about who should leave, who should relent, who should do what in yet another Arab nation is NOT going to do us any favors in that region for certain - leadership or people.
Speaking like that to anyone globally when you have literally no experience in managing an uprising on the scale of Egypt's is -to me- embarrassing.

Banshee · « **Reply #15 on:** February 07, 2011, 12:49:28 PM »

I'm not speaking for anyone else, but personally I think it's simply not, nor should it be, the United States' business to make policy for other countries. I find this recent interaction with the Egyptian government to be consistent with the precedent set by the Bush administration. However, diplomacy should never be taken at face value. It's my opinion that someone should interpret this not as Obama's personal sentiments for Egypt but as a message to the international community about the current position of the U.S. government on world affairs. It's equally as misguided and unnecessary as effecting regime change in a Middle Eastern country, though.

I was also implying that it's rather naive for anyone (not you in particular, 12) to think that a new president would mean any actual change in the status quo.

Vespertine · « **Reply #16 on:** February 07, 2011, 01:23:41 PM »

12, I certainly wasn't trying to to play the "well, Bush did it too" card. I think more than anything, I was responding to your comment that "it's just easier to pick when it's someone you don't like anyway". I agree with you, it is. I also agree with you in general terms that we should just stay the hell out of it entirely. I think the point I was trying to make was (because you don't like him anyway) that he's offering an opinion, which is a far cry from what his predecessor did, and by comparison is - yes - less wrong (all IMHO of course).

Banshee · « **Reply #17 on:** February 07, 2011, 01:35:23 PM »

Quote from: Vespertine on February 07, 2011, 01:23:41 PM

I think the point I was trying to make was (because you don't like him anyway) that he's offering an opinion, which is a far cry from what his predecessor did, and by comparison is - yes - less wrong (all IMHO of course).

IMO this is a valid point too. It's the same intent, but different deed.

12AX7 · « **Reply #18 on:** February 07, 2011, 01:56:13 PM »

Quote from: Vespertine on February 07, 2011, 01:23:41 PM

I think the point I was trying to make was (because you don't like him anyway) that he's offering an opinion, which is a far cry from what his predecessor did, and by comparison is - yes - less wrong (all IMHO of course).

'k, I'll give him that. He hasn't called US ordinance or troops in on their heads.

Is that our 'change'?

12AX7 · « **Reply #19 on:** February 07, 2011, 02:03:09 PM »

While we might not necessarily want to stay completely out of it (we DO have interests as a nation, ya know); there are times (more so for the less experienced in any endeavor) when silence is golden.

ivan · « **Reply #20 on:** February 07, 2011, 02:31:03 PM »

Quote from: 12AX7 on February 07, 2011, 02:03:09 PM

While we might not necessarily want to stay completely out of it (we DO have interests as a nation, ya know); there are times (more so for the less experienced in any endeavor) when silence is golden.

No matter what the president does or does not do, someone's gonna call him on it.

http://www.outloudopinion.com/2011/01/28/editorial-obama-silent-on-overseas-revolts-1-27-11/
http://spectator.org/blog/2011/01/25/as-egypt-erupts-will-obama-rem
http://www.alternet.org/newsandviews/article/450825/obama_silent_on_egyptian_protests_against_oppressive_regime_we%27ve_backed_for_years/
http://rt.com/programs/alyona-show/egypt-obama-silent-revolution/
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/11/11/AR2010111107467.html
http://www.sify.com/news/why-is-a-billion-strong-democracy-silent-on-egypt-news-columns-lcenOfgbjjj.html

12AX7 · « **Reply #21 on:** February 07, 2011, 02:33:36 PM »

I simply have an opinion based on what I myself heard coming from his mouth. I listened; and was embarrassed.

Vespertine · « **Reply #22 on:** February 08, 2011, 12:09:07 PM »

12, have you considered that Obama wasn't out there just spouting his own personal opinion? My understanding has always been that when a president speaks on foreign affairs, the words are pretty much written by the state department. At a minimum the state department would vet any remarks prepared by the president's speech writers when it comes to foreign affairs. I only mention it because maybe the president isn't who you should be embarassed by...maybe you should be embarassed by the entire approach to foreign policy.

12AX7 · « **Reply #23 on:** February 08, 2011, 12:17:59 PM »

Quote from: Vespertine on February 08, 2011, 12:09:07 PM

...maybe you should be embarassed by the entire approach to foreign policy.

Oh I am, believe me. I have been for quite some time now. I'm not only embarrassed about foreign policy; but seriously

concerned with the size and scope of our Federal Government, and its domestic policies as well.

Quote from: Vespertine on February 08, 2011, 12:09:07 PM

12, have you considered that Obama wasn't out there just spouting his own personal opinion? My understanding has always been that when a president speaks on foreign affairs, the words are pretty much written by the state department. At a minimum the state department would vet any remarks prepared by the president's speech writers when it comes to foreign affairs.

Now now. You can't have it both ways. You can't give a man a Nobel Prize for his words when you like what you hear; then when you don't like what you

hear say it isn't his words; it is some speech writer's. Either he owns what comes out of his mouth; or he doesn't. If he is SO weak and stupid as to not

know/support/understand what he's saying in a speech; he's the one that should leave .. NOW.

12AX7 · « **Reply #24 on:** February 08, 2011, 01:16:07 PM »

Quote from: ivan on February 07, 2011, 02:31:03 PM

No matter what the president does or does not do, someone's gonna call him on it.

http://www.outloudopinion.com/2011/01/28/editorial-obama-silent-on-overseas-revolts-1-27-11/
http://spectator.org/blog/2011/01/25/as-egypt-erupts-will-obama-rem
http://www.alternet.org/newsandviews/article/450825/obama_silent_on_egyptian_protests_against_oppressive_regime_we%27ve_backed_for_years/
http://rt.com/programs/alyona-show/egypt-obama-silent-revolution/
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/11/11/AR2010111107467.html
http://www.sify.com/news/why-is-a-billion-strong-democracy-silent-on-egypt-news-columns-lcenOfgbjjj.html

If he is being silent on the issue; good for us. He's on the right track.

My current opinion, though, is based on two different videos I saw on youtube of Obama speaking. His words, tone, and delivery had me cringing; and possibly seeing a bit

of maybe why the rest of the world can't stand us no matter how much we try to 'help'.

News:

Recent Forum Posts

Shout Box

Author Topic: Egypt (Read 7640 times)

12AX7

12AX7

12AX7

12AX7

12AX7

12AX7

12AX7

12AX7

12AX7

12AX7

12AX7

12AX7

12AX7