Thanks for the change, Obama.

[tkthafm]

You of all speaking of awful arguments... look at your post.

Perhaps you lack the comprehension to understand it, given how you are unable to grasp simple concepts like what I was getting at in regards to the US role in Egypt earlier. It's expected when folks who have no idea what they are talking about get exposed that they might resort to just ignoring the other side's views. I have no problem schooling folks so it doesn't bother me.

 

[callhimar]

To be perfectly honest I didn't read any of your prior posts. I only saw:

I must've forgotten the poor fellow really couldn't do/say ANYTHING about Libya/Egypt/Syria/Iraq/Afghanistan/Patriot Act etc... (oh wait, his administration is dictating the course of action on all these issues and many more 

)

which seemed to imply you were upset with our inaction. Then you went here:

My gripe with how we handled Egypt is the fact that we were ever involved in the first place (not our lack of involvement once it got started). I'm just laughing at the fact we were butt-buddies with Mubarak and once he's gone we make speeches celebrating like the Egyptian citizens are too dumb to realize what was going on (hence the snake stabbing you in the back then wishing you well - the audacity of Clinton to visit Tahrir Square). 

[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]which makes me think you're some kind of complete isolationist which, again, in today's world simply isn't a reasonable position to hold. I explained the situation with Egypt and American relations in my previous post, perhaps you're the one with the comprehension issue. [/font]

[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]
[/font]

[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]
[/font]

 

[callhimar]

To be perfectly honest I didn't read any of your prior posts. I only saw:

I must've forgotten the poor fellow really couldn't do/say ANYTHING about Libya/Egypt/Syria/Iraq/Afghanistan/Patriot Act etc... (oh wait, his administration is dictating the course of action on all these issues and many more 

)

which seemed to imply you were upset with our inaction. Then you went here:

My gripe with how we handled Egypt is the fact that we were ever involved in the first place (not our lack of involvement once it got started). I'm just laughing at the fact we were butt-buddies with Mubarak and once he's gone we make speeches celebrating like the Egyptian citizens are too dumb to realize what was going on (hence the snake stabbing you in the back then wishing you well - the audacity of Clinton to visit Tahrir Square). 

[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]which makes me think you're some kind of complete isolationist which, again, in today's world simply isn't a reasonable position to hold. I explained the situation with Egypt and American relations in my previous post, perhaps you're the one with the comprehension issue. [/font]

[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]
[/font]

[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]
[/font]

 

[tkthafm]

It's always "reasonable" to support a tyrant when it favors Israel, you didn't know ? No one else matters.

 

[tkthafm]

It's always "reasonable" to support a tyrant when it favors Israel, you didn't know ? No one else matters.

 

[callhimar]

Originally Posted by tkthafm

It's always "reasonable" to support a tyrant when it favors Israel, you didn't know ? No one else matters.

Clearly you do have that comprehension issue, since nowhere in my post did I even mention Israel. 
And I'm not sure if you're new here but I'm sure there are a number of people who know for a fact that I'd be the last person to bring that issue to the table. 

 

[callhimar]

Originally Posted by tkthafm

It's always "reasonable" to support a tyrant when it favors Israel, you didn't know ? No one else matters.

Clearly you do have that comprehension issue, since nowhere in my post did I even mention Israel. 
And I'm not sure if you're new here but I'm sure there are a number of people who know for a fact that I'd be the last person to bring that issue to the table. 

 

[tkthafm]

So you would agree with me in being appalled at the cowardice and two face hypocrisy of the Obama administration in how they handled Egypt ?
Clarify your position on this for me. Did you support us arming/funding his regime for 30+ years (even under Obama) ? 

 

[tkthafm]

So you would agree with me in being appalled at the cowardice and two face hypocrisy of the Obama administration in how they handled Egypt ?
Clarify your position on this for me. Did you support us arming/funding his regime for 30+ years (even under Obama) ? 

 

[bostonthreeparty]

Originally Posted by tkthafm

Originally Posted by B Smooth 202

Dont blame Obama...blame narrow minded thinking on behalf of the American people for thinking one man can change the entire system.

at least the fact that Obama is in office introduced the concept of 'change' to these people who arbitrarily accept the legitimacy of our system

so Obama is not the change we asked for. Can we finally make the changes that really need to be made rather than a symbolic one? 
the whole system is trash...it has nothing to do with Obama...and dont blame our brother for this !#@$ hole of a nations situation. 

Once again, for the "Obama is free from blame" crowd... we KNOW he can't "change" everything single-handedly. This does NOT absolve him from any responsibility. Look at the bolded sentence. You REALLY believe Obama has NOTHING to do with any of the problems in the "system" ? Simply look at my previous post. Obama is a coward & is responsible (both him and his administration) for many of the problems we face today. 
I must've forgotten the poor fellow really couldn't do/say ANYTHING about Libya/Egypt/Syria/Iraq/Afghanistan/Patriot Act etc... (oh wait, his administration is dictating the course of action on all these issues and many more 

)

almost 100% certain that if this was Bush, people would just focus all of the blame on him, but with Obama, its a different case. 

 

[bostonthreeparty]

Originally Posted by tkthafm

Originally Posted by B Smooth 202

Dont blame Obama...blame narrow minded thinking on behalf of the American people for thinking one man can change the entire system.

at least the fact that Obama is in office introduced the concept of 'change' to these people who arbitrarily accept the legitimacy of our system

so Obama is not the change we asked for. Can we finally make the changes that really need to be made rather than a symbolic one? 
the whole system is trash...it has nothing to do with Obama...and dont blame our brother for this !#@$ hole of a nations situation. 

Once again, for the "Obama is free from blame" crowd... we KNOW he can't "change" everything single-handedly. This does NOT absolve him from any responsibility. Look at the bolded sentence. You REALLY believe Obama has NOTHING to do with any of the problems in the "system" ? Simply look at my previous post. Obama is a coward & is responsible (both him and his administration) for many of the problems we face today. 
I must've forgotten the poor fellow really couldn't do/say ANYTHING about Libya/Egypt/Syria/Iraq/Afghanistan/Patriot Act etc... (oh wait, his administration is dictating the course of action on all these issues and many more 

)

almost 100% certain that if this was Bush, people would just focus all of the blame on him, but with Obama, its a different case. 

 

[tkthafm]

Originally Posted by BostonThreeParty

Originally Posted by tkthafm

Originally Posted by B Smooth 202

Dont blame Obama...blame narrow minded thinking on behalf of the American people for thinking one man can change the entire system.

at least the fact that Obama is in office introduced the concept of 'change' to these people who arbitrarily accept the legitimacy of our system

so Obama is not the change we asked for. Can we finally make the changes that really need to be made rather than a symbolic one? 
the whole system is trash...it has nothing to do with Obama...and dont blame our brother for this !#@$ hole of a nations situation. 

Once again, for the "Obama is free from blame" crowd... we KNOW he can't "change" everything single-handedly. This does NOT absolve him from any responsibility. Look at the bolded sentence. You REALLY believe Obama has NOTHING to do with any of the problems in the "system" ? Simply look at my previous post. Obama is a coward & is responsible (both him and his administration) for many of the problems we face today. 
I must've forgotten the poor fellow really couldn't do/say ANYTHING about Libya/Egypt/Syria/Iraq/Afghanistan/Patriot Act etc... (oh wait, his administration is dictating the course of action on all these issues and many more 

)

almost 100% certain that if this was Bush, people would just focus all of the blame on him, but with Obama, its a different case. 

That's what's crazy to me. 
Some of the same people who were Bush's loudest critics are now no where to be found when Obama does the same things they were complaining about. My only explanation for this is that they never really gave a #$#% about the issues and only got "into" politics because hating Bush became a "cool" fad and they wanted to jump on the trend. Now that Obama is "cool" few care what he does anymore. 

CallHimAR wrote:

---

tkthafm wrote:

---

So you would agree with me in being appalled at the cowardice and two face hypocrisy of the Obama administration in how they handled Egypt ?

What you see as "cowardice and two faced hypocrisy" to me is good diplomacy. The world is significantly larger than just the United States and Egypt. Had we supported the revolution from the beginning and Mubarak regained control there would have been irreparable damage to the relationship between the two countries. If we had militarily supported it, it would have been viewed as more unwanted Western intervention in the affairs of an Arab country, and would have substantially undermined the revolution, and possibly the revolutions that came after.
Also, another thing to consider is the damage the support of the revolution, pre and post, would have/has done to our relationship with other countries. For instance Saudi Arabia. If we get militarily involved in too many and show support, the leadership in Saudi Arabia will no doubt become wary of anything we do or say because in the back of the minds they know they'll be next.

Maybe you didn't catch my edit, but I'm not talking about us getting/not getting involved in the '11 revolution. Just the fact that we're celebrating it after 30+ years of funding the dictator.

 

[callhimar]

Originally Posted by tkthafm

So you would agree with me in being appalled at the cowardice and two face hypocrisy of the Obama administration in how they handled Egypt ?

What you see as "cowardice and two faced hypocrisy" to me is good diplomacy. The world is significantly larger than just the United States and Egypt. Had we supported the revolution from the beginning and Mubarak regained control there would have been irreparable damage to the relationship between the two countries. If we had militarily supported it, it would have been viewed as more unwanted Western intervention in the affairs of an Arab country, and would have substantially undermined the revolution, and possibly the revolutions that came after.
Also, another thing to consider is the damage the support of the revolution, pre and post, would have/has done to our relationship with other countries. For instance Saudi Arabia. If we get militarily involved in too many and show support, the leadership in Saudi Arabia will no doubt become wary of anything we do or say because in the back of the minds they know they'll be next.

 

[callhimar]

Originally Posted by tkthafm

So you would agree with me in being appalled at the cowardice and two face hypocrisy of the Obama administration in how they handled Egypt ?

What you see as "cowardice and two faced hypocrisy" to me is good diplomacy. The world is significantly larger than just the United States and Egypt. Had we supported the revolution from the beginning and Mubarak regained control there would have been irreparable damage to the relationship between the two countries. If we had militarily supported it, it would have been viewed as more unwanted Western intervention in the affairs of an Arab country, and would have substantially undermined the revolution, and possibly the revolutions that came after.
Also, another thing to consider is the damage the support of the revolution, pre and post, would have/has done to our relationship with other countries. For instance Saudi Arabia. If we get militarily involved in too many and show support, the leadership in Saudi Arabia will no doubt become wary of anything we do or say because in the back of the minds they know they'll be next.

 

[tkthafm]

Originally Posted by BostonThreeParty

Originally Posted by tkthafm

Originally Posted by B Smooth 202

Dont blame Obama...blame narrow minded thinking on behalf of the American people for thinking one man can change the entire system.

at least the fact that Obama is in office introduced the concept of 'change' to these people who arbitrarily accept the legitimacy of our system

so Obama is not the change we asked for. Can we finally make the changes that really need to be made rather than a symbolic one? 
the whole system is trash...it has nothing to do with Obama...and dont blame our brother for this !#@$ hole of a nations situation. 

Once again, for the "Obama is free from blame" crowd... we KNOW he can't "change" everything single-handedly. This does NOT absolve him from any responsibility. Look at the bolded sentence. You REALLY believe Obama has NOTHING to do with any of the problems in the "system" ? Simply look at my previous post. Obama is a coward & is responsible (both him and his administration) for many of the problems we face today. 
I must've forgotten the poor fellow really couldn't do/say ANYTHING about Libya/Egypt/Syria/Iraq/Afghanistan/Patriot Act etc... (oh wait, his administration is dictating the course of action on all these issues and many more 

)

almost 100% certain that if this was Bush, people would just focus all of the blame on him, but with Obama, its a different case. 

That's what's crazy to me. 
Some of the same people who were Bush's loudest critics are now no where to be found when Obama does the same things they were complaining about. My only explanation for this is that they never really gave a #$#% about the issues and only got "into" politics because hating Bush became a "cool" fad and they wanted to jump on the trend. Now that Obama is "cool" few care what he does anymore. 

CallHimAR wrote:

---

tkthafm wrote:

---

So you would agree with me in being appalled at the cowardice and two face hypocrisy of the Obama administration in how they handled Egypt ?

What you see as "cowardice and two faced hypocrisy" to me is good diplomacy. The world is significantly larger than just the United States and Egypt. Had we supported the revolution from the beginning and Mubarak regained control there would have been irreparable damage to the relationship between the two countries. If we had militarily supported it, it would have been viewed as more unwanted Western intervention in the affairs of an Arab country, and would have substantially undermined the revolution, and possibly the revolutions that came after.
Also, another thing to consider is the damage the support of the revolution, pre and post, would have/has done to our relationship with other countries. For instance Saudi Arabia. If we get militarily involved in too many and show support, the leadership in Saudi Arabia will no doubt become wary of anything we do or say because in the back of the minds they know they'll be next.

Maybe you didn't catch my edit, but I'm not talking about us getting/not getting involved in the '11 revolution. Just the fact that we're celebrating it after 30+ years of funding the dictator.

 

[kix4kix]

From a united states perspective you are supposed to influence through funding, it's been the outline of foreign policy since the Marshall plan, is it fair? Maybe not, but life isn't.

 

[kix4kix]

From a united states perspective you are supposed to influence through funding, it's been the outline of foreign policy since the Marshall plan, is it fair? Maybe not, but life isn't.

 

[callhimar]

Originally Posted by tkthafm

Originally Posted by BostonThreeParty

Originally Posted by tkthafm

Once again, for the "Obama is free from blame" crowd... we KNOW he can't "change" everything single-handedly. This does NOT absolve him from any responsibility. Look at the bolded sentence. You REALLY believe Obama has NOTHING to do with any of the problems in the "system" ? Simply look at my previous post. Obama is a coward & is responsible (both him and his administration) for many of the problems we face today. 
I must've forgotten the poor fellow really couldn't do/say ANYTHING about Libya/Egypt/Syria/Iraq/Afghanistan/Patriot Act etc... (oh wait, his administration is dictating the course of action on all these issues and many more 

)

almost 100% certain that if this was Bush, people would just focus all of the blame on him, but with Obama, its a different case. 

That's what's crazy to me. 
Some of the same people who were Bush's loudest critics are now no where to be found when Obama does the same things they were complaining about. My only explanation for this is that they never really gave a #$#% about the issues and only got "into" politics because hating Bush became a "cool" fad and they wanted to jump on the trend. Now that Obama is "cool" few care what he does anymore. 

CallHimAR wrote:

---

tkthafm wrote:

---

So you would agree with me in being appalled at the cowardice and two face hypocrisy of the Obama administration in how they handled Egypt ?

Maybe you didn't catch my edit, but I'm not talking about us getting/not getting involved in the '11 revolution. Just the fact that we're celebrating it after 30+ years of funding the dictator.

First of all, what you guys are missing is the context of the two presidencies. Bush and the Neocons had an agenda, pushed it, and didn't really care to clean it up for the public. This is why they were looked at in such a negative light. Obama can put on the humanitarian face when he needs to, and does, even if that is only (arguably) one motive. 
I didn't catch the edit.

Of course not. The only reason we did that was because we wanted the region to stabilize. There could not be a war between Israel, Egypt, Syria and Jordan every decade. Egypt was willing to sign a peace agreement with Israel which deflated all Arab unity, cut off the head of the Arab opposition to Israeli crimes, and led to the situation we see in Israel/Palestine today. And all of this was done for the small price of throwing Egypt some money every year. From a geopolitical standpoint, it had to be done to assure U.S. hegemony in the area during the Cold War and stabilize things at the expense of the Palestinian people.

Personally? I don't agree with funding dictators, but I can certainly understand why the United States did/still does.

 

[callhimar]

Originally Posted by tkthafm

Originally Posted by BostonThreeParty

Originally Posted by tkthafm

Once again, for the "Obama is free from blame" crowd... we KNOW he can't "change" everything single-handedly. This does NOT absolve him from any responsibility. Look at the bolded sentence. You REALLY believe Obama has NOTHING to do with any of the problems in the "system" ? Simply look at my previous post. Obama is a coward & is responsible (both him and his administration) for many of the problems we face today. 
I must've forgotten the poor fellow really couldn't do/say ANYTHING about Libya/Egypt/Syria/Iraq/Afghanistan/Patriot Act etc... (oh wait, his administration is dictating the course of action on all these issues and many more 

)

almost 100% certain that if this was Bush, people would just focus all of the blame on him, but with Obama, its a different case. 

That's what's crazy to me. 
Some of the same people who were Bush's loudest critics are now no where to be found when Obama does the same things they were complaining about. My only explanation for this is that they never really gave a #$#% about the issues and only got "into" politics because hating Bush became a "cool" fad and they wanted to jump on the trend. Now that Obama is "cool" few care what he does anymore. 

CallHimAR wrote:

---

tkthafm wrote:

---

So you would agree with me in being appalled at the cowardice and two face hypocrisy of the Obama administration in how they handled Egypt ?

Maybe you didn't catch my edit, but I'm not talking about us getting/not getting involved in the '11 revolution. Just the fact that we're celebrating it after 30+ years of funding the dictator.

First of all, what you guys are missing is the context of the two presidencies. Bush and the Neocons had an agenda, pushed it, and didn't really care to clean it up for the public. This is why they were looked at in such a negative light. Obama can put on the humanitarian face when he needs to, and does, even if that is only (arguably) one motive. 
I didn't catch the edit.

Of course not. The only reason we did that was because we wanted the region to stabilize. There could not be a war between Israel, Egypt, Syria and Jordan every decade. Egypt was willing to sign a peace agreement with Israel which deflated all Arab unity, cut off the head of the Arab opposition to Israeli crimes, and led to the situation we see in Israel/Palestine today. And all of this was done for the small price of throwing Egypt some money every year. From a geopolitical standpoint, it had to be done to assure U.S. hegemony in the area during the Cold War and stabilize things at the expense of the Palestinian people.

Personally? I don't agree with funding dictators, but I can certainly understand why the United States did/still does.

 

[tkthafm]

You see, this "small price" of funding Mubarak led to all the suffering for Egyptian citizens that bought about the revolution.

Do you now understand why I find Obama and his administration giving Mubarak millions in $/arms ... then turning around and celebrating the revolution as hypocritical ? They don't give a *%%$ about the citizens.

I see that Obama can put a "humanitarian" face on his actions, but that's the point of this thread. I don't buy into the facade.

 

[tkthafm]

You see, this "small price" of funding Mubarak led to all the suffering for Egyptian citizens that bought about the revolution.

Do you now understand why I find Obama and his administration giving Mubarak millions in $/arms ... then turning around and celebrating the revolution as hypocritical ? They don't give a *%%$ about the citizens.

I see that Obama can put a "humanitarian" face on his actions, but that's the point of this thread. I don't buy into the facade.

 

[devildog1776]

F Obama

 

[devildog1776]

F Obama

 

[callhimar]

Originally Posted by tkthafm

You see, this "small price" of funding Mubarak led to all the suffering for Egyptian citizens that bought about the revolution.

Do you now understand why I find Obama and his administration giving Mubarak millions in $/arms ... then turning around and celebrating the revolution as hypocritical ? They don't give a *%%$ about the citizens.

I see that Obama can put a "humanitarian" face on his actions, but that's the point of this thread. I don't buy into the facade.

Why do you keep bringing up Obama like he was President at Camp David and for the twenty plus years thereafter? Yes, we funded Mubarak's dictatorship for a very long time, but that can again be related to what I said in my previous post about the multitude of others we funded. We needed them to keep the region stable, to keep/solidify our hegemony and to keep the oil flowing. Again, do I agree with this? No. It's selfish, but realistically? That is how the world has worked for a long time.
What would you rather they do? Fight the protesters so Mubarak can retake power? Politics is a lot of public relations work as well, and if we hadn't come out and praised the Egyptian revolution afterwards and even called for reforms and, to a certain extent when it was clear Mubarak was gone, beforehand the administration would have looked ridiculous. There are certainly some humanitarian feelings there but there are other motives involved, as always.

Again, it isn't hypocritical, it's politics.

 

[callhimar]

Originally Posted by tkthafm

You see, this "small price" of funding Mubarak led to all the suffering for Egyptian citizens that bought about the revolution.

Do you now understand why I find Obama and his administration giving Mubarak millions in $/arms ... then turning around and celebrating the revolution as hypocritical ? They don't give a *%%$ about the citizens.

I see that Obama can put a "humanitarian" face on his actions, but that's the point of this thread. I don't buy into the facade.

Why do you keep bringing up Obama like he was President at Camp David and for the twenty plus years thereafter? Yes, we funded Mubarak's dictatorship for a very long time, but that can again be related to what I said in my previous post about the multitude of others we funded. We needed them to keep the region stable, to keep/solidify our hegemony and to keep the oil flowing. Again, do I agree with this? No. It's selfish, but realistically? That is how the world has worked for a long time.
What would you rather they do? Fight the protesters so Mubarak can retake power? Politics is a lot of public relations work as well, and if we hadn't come out and praised the Egyptian revolution afterwards and even called for reforms and, to a certain extent when it was clear Mubarak was gone, beforehand the administration would have looked ridiculous. There are certainly some humanitarian feelings there but there are other motives involved, as always.

Again, it isn't hypocritical, it's politics.