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

[Murf76]

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?

See post #80.

 

[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?

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.

Correct me if I am wrong, but they had an actual election in Egypt, didn't they?

 

[Salt Jones]

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.

Lebanon, Palestine, Tunisia, Iraq. People vote for the governments they want. It's not up to us to pick their leaders, that's how we got into this mess. Do you think the Muslim Brotherhood recruited off of the acts committed by Mubarak?

 

[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?

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

If Egypt was not our ally, then why all the assistance with Desert Storm?

We have an official alliance with thew Arab League, of which Egypt is a member state, if you want a documented alliance.

Then there's the State Department...

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/09/13/state-department-corrects-obama-says-egypt-is-ally/

The State Department, cutting through the confusion over President Obama's claim that Egypt is not a U.S. ally, contradicted his characterization Thursday.

For the record, spokeswoman Victoria Nuland said, Egypt is considered a major non-NATO ally.

The comment came as White House aides also carefully clarified the president's remarks.

 

[Murf76]

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.

Lebanon, Palestine, Tunisia, Iraq. People vote for the governments they want. It's not up to us to pick their leaders, that's how we got into this mess. Do you think the Muslim Brotherhood recruited off of the acts committed by Mubarak?

'Voting for the government you want' doesn't always result in freedom. Democracy in and of itself is an evil, evil thing. We bandy that word about as if it were the end all and be all of freedom, but it's not. It's 51% tyrannizing the other 49%. Certainly Coptic Christians and women aren't freer today than they were under Hosni Mubarak.

The beauty of our representative republic is that we restrain democracy upon the foundation of our U.S. Constitution, which first and foremost protects the unalienable, natural rights of individual citizens. A democracy which doesn't protect minority opinion is nothing but a mob, two wolves and a lamb deciding what to have for lunch.

In answer to your question, yeah... unless these countries are posing a national security threat to the United States, we shouldn't interfere with them militarily. But diplomatically?... that's a whole different can of worms. Our money and our good will are ours to disperse as best befits our interests and goals. And IMO, that's WHY we have a State Department and we should use it to it's best effect.

Barack Obama didn't do Egypt any favors. They've just exchanged one bad deal for another. Instead of an authoritarian dictator with stability, they've got religious zealots and instability. They're no safer... and no freer. Should the protests at our embassy threaten it, the government there will once again be in the unenviable position of trying to decide whether they'll fire on their own citizens. They're back to where they started in terms of unrest, and in part because they don't truly understand how "democracy" must be harnessed.

 

[Polk]

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.

Correct me if I am wrong, but they had an actual election in Egypt, didn't they?

Yes. However, the transition was not from one elected government to another.