Claiming to know how Bush would have reacted to this protest is a little far fetched. The guy attacked another nation to bring "freedom to the people" (along with 100 other reasons), I don't think he would call Mubarak a "friend of the US". He might have been a C+ student but he's not a complete moron. Obama has been very careful with his words, he hasn't really called for anything, more of a wait and see what happens approach. Which is what anyone would do! You've been drinking some serious Obama Koolaid. The guy has no plan of his own, he's just continuing with the same foreign policy Bush had. Funny how you state "remember the foolishness" as though none of this is going on today.
I only went back a few pages to see if it had already been posted, so I am very sorry if it has. Perhaps it's worth being seen again if that is the case.
I hold the US government significantly responsible for the past 30 years. How can you deny that? You said yourself that Obama will act in the interest of his people, and since his interests conflicts with the interests of Egyptians, it's quite obvious that the US government has been instrumental in denying Egyptians their rights. All I want from Obama is to follow up on his promises from the speech he gave in Egypt to the 'Arab' world. I would even prefer if his speech was one that was safe - in that, it didn't show support for any side until the outcome was decided. But IMO, as I said, he showed support for Mubarak with a slap on the wrist. He asked the Egyptian people to show more patience and wait for democracy from a 30-year tyrant. That's shameful. Like I said. He should have spoke out against Mubarak, or not spoken at all. Saying that the government needs reform essentially is a show of support for Mubarak. If he wanted to avoid the US being seen as being influential in the matter, he failed IMO. That's certainly what the television is showing you, but again, Egyptians are not idiots. They do not simply create that "Made in USA" link. When the VP of the US came out and said Mubarak is not a dictator, that means a lot more than where the tanks are produced. The symbolism of tear gas and tanks being made in the USA is to show where US funding has been going. But that does not cover the fact that the US would prefer that Mubarak stays in place, which is something in the US interests, but against those of Egyptians. All I want to see if the will of the Egyptian people prevail, I could care less about anyone less. It's not like my country benefits from the Muslim Brotherhood gaining authority or awakening an economic sleeping giant like Egypt in the region. But some things are more important to me than others.
If this movement was given a leader, Mubarak would crush it/him/her. IMO the problem with your approach is that it plays into the hands of Mubarak. The Egyptian people know it too. Just like Obama acts in the interests of the US, Egyptians are acting in the interests of Egyptians. The interest of Egyptians is that no dialogue is worth having with Mubarak, and any changes which need to be made can be made by a transitional government after and only after Mubarak has left. That's not an unreasonable position to take. There can't be an alternative right now because there have been no candidates, elections, etc. As long as Mubarak is sitting at the top, no one will trust a candidate. He has to go, then the interested parties can line up and present themselves to the public, and then the public can select what they want. There is absolutely no reason to believe that this transitional period is less favorable than letting Mubarak stay another day.
Well said and totally in line with a co-worker born here whose mother is from from Dubai says about Mubarak, Egypt and the US. . As Barandei said: every day the US does not get in line with the overthrow of Mubarak it is losing more credibility.
Jimmy Carter maintains American honor and his reputation for truth. ******* PLAINS, Ga. (AP) - Former President Jimmy Carter, who brokered a peace accord between Israel and Egypt in 1978, on Sunday called the political unrest and rioting in Egypt earth-shaking and said that President Hosni Mubarak probably will have to step down. Carter told a Sunday school class that he teaches that the unrest is "the most profound situation in the Middle East" since he left office in 1981. He said he thinks the unrest will ease in the next week, but his "guess is Mubarak will have to leave." Click here for the latest news from Egypt. The Columbus Ledger-Enquirer reported Carter's remarks made at Maranatha Baptist Church in Plains and his spokeswoman confirmed them. "The United States wants Mubarak to stay in power, but the people have decided," Carter said.His spokeswoman, Deanna Congileo, said no further statement would be issued. Carter brought Egyptian President Anwar Sadat and Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin together for the peace accord signed in Washington, D.C. Sadat and Begin shared the Nobel Peace Prize for the treaty. Mubarak was vice president at the time and became president in 1981 when Sadat was assassinated by opponents of the agreement. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/01/30/jimmy-carter-egypt_n_816088.html
There are also signs like this... ...that aren't being reported. (got it from a haaretz screenshot since I couldn't source the image)
I think we'd all agree this type of image is not surprising. Obviously who ends up with power in Egypt will have a tremendous impact on the situation with Israel. It seems the protests are largely lead by more secular youth, and that ElBaradei wouldn't align himself with the islamic extremists, but then again, probably the most organized group there is the muslim brotherhood, which is troublesome. If they are put in a position of power, very bad news for Israel as well as the copts (10% of the population) What's the discussion like in Israel? Which groups do they expect to emerge in power in Egypt?
Officially, Israel has been unusually diplomatic and have said as little as possible (which is what I personally think Clinton and Obama should have done), and the cabinet was apparently instructed to refrain from any comments. The PM gave a very short statement that just re-iterated that Israel wants to maintain peace with Egypt. That's it. As for the discussion in Israel, it ranges from apathy, to panic, to pointing fingers at the intelligence services for not seeing it coming, to complete support for democracy-no-matter-the-consequences-'cause-it's-the-right-thing-to-do. I would read the usual suspects if you want more. This pretty much covers the whole range of Israeli political opinion in English: haaretz.com jpost.com http://www.ynet.co.il/english/home/0,7340,L-3083,00.html http://972mag.com/ But what is probably most significant, is that in neither Gaza nor in the West Bank is any kind of demonstration happening...because the leaders in those places aren't letting them. Some of the op-eds I read today speculate that the both the PA and Hamas regimes are next...but I find it hard to imagine what would replace them.
I'm not sure whether or not this points been made, but I believe it to be a crucial one in light of whats happening in Egypt and Tunisia: Perhaps through these events, the Muslim world can learn the process of bringing about real change. That, when individuals and a society coalesce, irrespective of gender, race, and ethnicity, they are almost unstoppable. This should serve as a profound lesson to militaristic elements throughout the world- those who seek to inflict senseless violence on innocent bystanders without introducing any real change. Militancy neither advances its intended objectives, nor does it improve a social condition. When a society takes ownership of its own conidition, thats when change begins to happen.
How is it hijacked...any more or less than any other thread? Because of the Obama discussion that flared up?
Except Obama has only been president for the last two years. Do you expect him to come in and undo 30 years of history? Again I don't think you are fully appreciating the delicacy of the situation from Obama's point of view or thinking through the implications of having Obama putting his weight behind removing Mubarak. Obama is bound both by the history but also has to deal with Congress along with the whole geopolitical situation in the Middle East. All of that said Obama has still done quite a bit to foster change in Egypt. His speech in Cairo in 2009 and also aid that the US has given to Egyptian reformers. While I don't think the current events are directly tied to anything Obama and the US has done I think those might've influenced things. I don't think it is exactly in the US interests that Mubarak stay in place at the moment and I think you are reading more into Obama and US figures statements that what may be there. The US cannot throw Mubarak under the bus so at most they can give is the nuanced statements that they have given. The problem I see with your view is that you are reading anything short of saying "Mubarak must go" as being support of Mubarak. I don't think that is the case at all. And if you notice the statements from Obama and other US officials is that the will of the Egyptian people should be heard. Let me give you another example that might put your mind at ease, Suharto in Indonesia had been a staunch US ally and when unrest against him began against him in the late 1990's the Clinton Admin. made statements very similar to what the Obama Admin. is saying now. They US still welcomed the resignation of Suharto and supported the reform efforts of those that followed him. Don't read the qualified statements regarding as full support for Mubarak. The Obama admin is going as far as it can without appearing to directly advocate regime change in Egypt but that doesn't mean they wouldn't accept or even welcome it.
Yes. I don't think it's relevant. US presidential or state department commentary is really moot due to the usual USA diplomatic doublespeak and it's not even remotely administration specific. Hilariously, we did get a bit of a transparent look at the duplicity courtesy of everyone's favorite bumbler, Joe Biden. But most of the comments are just stupid partisan nonsense not germane to the topic at all.
Keep in mind that just before the Iranian Revolution Carter said that the Shah was beloved by the Iranian people and then later allowed the Shah to come to the US. Those are part of the reasons why Iranians held the US Embassy hostage and made sure to not release the hostages until the day Carter left office.
The US supported Sadat, because he made peace with Israel and left the Soviet sphere of influence. Then he was assassinated, and his VP took over (Mubarak) and continued to rule the largest population in the ME with continued pro-western outlook. And the US continued to support him. It's not like Kissinger sent in the CIA to stage a coup and put him into power. I'm no fan of US foreign policy, especially in regard for the things that happened in South Vietnam / Guatemala/ El Salvador / Chile and so on...but Egypt isn't the same. Yes, he's a dictator and the people are living on less than $2 a day and have every reason to be pissed off, but it's disingenuous to blame the US for domestic Egyptian policy. In short, Mubarak was good for peace, good for business, and bad for his people and it's no secret to anyone and the whole world supported him as long as he was in power. As for Obama and his Sec of State...my main complaint is that they should have said as little as possible. IF Mubarak stays in power, they will be seen as being not supportive enough of him. If he's out, the opposition will see the US as an easy common enemy to fan the flames of common anger for supporting him. By being weasely, they pretty much put US relations in a no-win situation. But it's ok...we've been here before. The US didn't support the French Revolution...
Politics usually is smoke and mirrors. That link doesn't prove or confirm anything. ElBaradei, who a few of my Egyptians say is barely known in the country, has much to gain by selling this notion of Islamists posing no threat since he claims Egyptian politics is entirely different from Iranian politics. What's in it for him? Rule of the country of course. The fact is that Egypt like Iran has become increasingly radicalized in certain parts of the country, that the metrics used in politics to analyze trends have not accounted for support or even acknowledged the extent of growth in parallel-Islamist societies, and that the Muslim Brotherhood, although not carbon copies of other extremist groups, has gone through many changes since its inception, but today it's not the kind of ideology the ME needs. America might be exaggerating the MB's influence to keep Mubarak in power (see nothing wrong with that for the immediate future) or the MB threat is legit enough, yet ElBaradei is downplaying it for his own benefit. We (capitalist, centrist, pragmatic Americans) shouldn't take that chance.
