Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Hosni Mubarak has been the dictator of Egypt since October 14, 1981.
In 1985, Reagan met with Mubarak:
Reagan Meeting With President Hosni Mubarak
I reassured President Mubarak of the commitment of the United States and my personal commitment to work with Egypt and our other friends in the area to achieve a just and lasting peace.
I thank you, and God bless you.
So it seems to me that Reagan had no problem with Mubarak back in the 80's, or if he did, he never vocalized it once in his life.
Check this out:
White House Insider: Obama is Clueless. Totally Clueless | Newsflavor
A surprise message from our D.C. Insider reveals an Obama White House completely unprepared for the events in Egypt, and increasingly fearful of Obamas chances for re-election in 2012.
Obama is clueless. Totally clueless.
The people who voted for him and still support him are.
democracy is breaking out all over
That is not really fair. We supported Mubarak because there was no Viable alternative to the Egyptian Military. Even today in the midst of what looks like a popular uprising. There are still really only 2 Groups with a shot at running the Country.
The Military, or the Muslim Brotherhood.
Once again we seem to be faced with Choosing the lesser of 2 Evils.
One things for sure: he wouldn't encourage an outcome in which the Islamic Brotherhood took over the country.
And interesting that SOS Clinton, is NOT opposed to talks with the Muslim Brotherhood?
I'm just curious, what would you have us do, to prevent Mubarak talking with the Muslim Brotherhood, or anyone else?
Nothing.
He would do nothing. His sympathies may lie with the military (because it's them or the muslim brotherhood), but he wouldn't do anything.
Well, he may run away if an Islamist bombs an egyptian barracks, and then invade a small Caribbean nation.
you should stick to drinking, thats about the only battle you could win champ...So? You were trying to say Reagan didn't support the Shah, I proved otherwise.
Reagan also supplied support to the new regime in Iran several times throughout the 80's. Of course, this occurred because Congress banned the Reagan Administration from further funding the Contras under the Boland Amendment.
Also, was the Shah of Iran comment really the only thing you could even try to respond with in your defense of Ronald Reagan? Why don't you tell me the reasonable justification for which Ronald Reagan supported the Apartheid Government in South Africa. Or you could also give me justification for his support of other dictatorships.
I am speaking HISTORY. Aquaint yourself with it. As it stands? You are one that would ensure it is repeated.
all i see is hatter mopping the floor with your drunk ass.you should stick to drinking, thats about the only battle you could win champ...
This isn't about me. Nice try at obfuscation though. Now go run and play.
Let the adults talk.
That is not really fair. We supported Mubarak because there was no Viable alternative to the Egyptian Military. Even today in the midst of what looks like a popular uprising. There are still really only 2 Groups with a shot at running the Country.
The Military, or the Muslim Brotherhood.
Once again we seem to be faced with Choosing the lesser of 2 Evils.
Not really fair? Reagan made no issue of the lack of human rights in Egypt at any point during his Presidency. As for the current going-ons in Egypt, it is difficult to predict what will happen or which group will rise to power. Either way, I'm willing to bet the U.S will be involved in some capacity.
Then again, there are many people who say we (the United States) should not be involved in the choosing of any evil, leaving the leadership of a country up to the people in the country.
He'd probably visit the pyramids?
all i see is hatter mopping the floor with your drunk ass.
Run along and go play boy.
lol i am enjoyng you suck at dead mans cock....And g et things wrong....Typical Thomas.
That is not really fair. We supported Mubarak because there was no Viable alternative to the Egyptian Military. Even today in the midst of what looks like a popular uprising. There are still really only 2 Groups with a shot at running the Country.
The Military, or the Muslim Brotherhood.
Once again we seem to be faced with Choosing the lesser of 2 Evils.
Not really fair? Reagan made no issue of the lack of human rights in Egypt at any point during his Presidency. As for the current going-ons in Egypt, it is difficult to predict what will happen or which group will rise to power. Either way, I'm willing to bet the U.S will be involved in some capacity.
Then again, there are many people who say we (the United States) should not be involved in the choosing of any evil, leaving the leadership of a country up to the people in the country.
yes you have a wonderful Utopian view of the world. In a perfect world we would stay out of it. However we live in the Real world. Where Egypt controls Access to one of the most important Places on earth. The Canal, and is in close proximity to Israel.
Now Reagan could not exactly support Mubarak because the alternative was worse, while at the same time trashing him for human Rights abuses now could he.
It is very easy to arm Chair Quarter Back these issues and conclude we were wrong. It would be an entirely different thing to draw the same conclusion if you had actually been there at the time.
AquaAthena said:What Would Reagan Do In Egypt?
He would flee.
AquaAthena said:What Would Reagan Do In Egypt?
The same thing he did in Lebanon?
AquaAthena said:What Would Reagan Do In Egypt?
The same thing he did in Lebanon?
See? I keep trying to tell them....
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]Following a rapid deterioration of conditions in Beirut, President Reagan Feb. 7 ordered the U.S. Marines of the multinational peacekeeping force in Lebanon to begin withdrawing to U.S. ships offshore. [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]Reagan's decision followed the resignation of Lebanese President Amin Gemayel's cabinet Feb. 5 and a military collapse that left Moslem militiamen in control of western and southern Beirut. [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]As a show of continuing support for Gemayel, however, Reagan coupled his decision to withdraw with new rules of engagement that allowed U.S. commanders to mount naval and air attacks on antigovernment forces in Lebanon. [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]Reagan's announcement, which took most U.S. politicians by surprise, was greeted with relief by congressional leaders. The widening of the U.S. military role in support of Gemayel, however, came under immediate attack. [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]The U.S.'s European allies in the multinational peacekeeping force had also been given little warning of Reagan's decision, but Britain and Italy Feb. 8 quickly announced their own plans to withdraw from the embattled capital. [/FONT]
