a precursor to its destruction? Let's stop the over reaction. Egypt is an ally just as Israel is. Other countries in the middle east look to see how the U.S. treat Egypt and their aid in the war on terror may sag or be boosted in response. Israel has been getting away with murder for a long time. Yet the U.S. will not sell them out, and isn't about to let the destruction of Israel happen regardless of their position on the Mubarak issue. If Israel was so afraid of being destroyed by Egypt they wouldn't have started a war with them '67.
Let me get this straight. You're saying that Obama's refusal to explicitly demand Mubarak's ouster will result in the destruction of the Israeli state? Excuse me while I temporarily die of laughter.
I actually never said that and I don't think you have understood anything I have said. I never said he should endorse Mubarak nor did I say his choice would decide the fate of Israel. I said he shouldn't vote "present" The results of who comes to power in Egypt could lead to another very powerful government in the middle east desiring Israel's destruction. That's not an over reaction, in fact I would say it is likely.
So, if you will permit me to put your arguments together: - You're not saying he should endorse Mubarak. - You're not saying he should demand Mubarak's ouster. - You're saying he shouldn't straddle the fence. - Whatever he does do that somehow doesn't fall into the aforementioned three categories, could end up with him being responsible for the destruction of Israel. There, all bases covered, no?
Correct. that's what leadership is all about. Taking the difficult stance on an issue such as this (an issue that greatly effects our allies).
So, enlighten us, what exactly *is* the "difficult stance"? You've already established that it is neither "yea" nor "nay" nor "abstain", and that it is also not what he said.
YOU may not be able to "vote present," but it is the responsibility of the President to do just that. If anyone is to say anything officially, it should be Hillary Clinton, not Obama.
I believe his response was something generic like "I want whats best for the Egyptian people". If he would like to see Mubarak's ouster then I would of preferred something like: "I support the Egyptians peoples' mostly peaceful attempt to secure more freedoms for their families by removing the current administration. I have confidence the Egyptian people will stifle the attempts of terrorist groups to secure control over Egypt and form a beacon of democracy and religious tolerance in the Middle East" This tells Israel and the Egyptian people exactly where you stand and why.
"What I want is a representative government in Egypt and I have confidence that if Egypt moves in an orderly transition process, they will have a government in Egypt that will work together with us" Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...essive-government-mubarak-void/#ixzz1DJQ1FOgz It looks pretty clear to me!
"Representative government" clearly refers to a government that the people are able to choose. The only people who can't seem to see this are people who will criticize Obama no matter what he says or does.
You are saying he is publicly calling for Mubarak's ouster? Everyone else in this thread has been telling me it's good diplomacy that he not come out and say this and that's why he hasn't.
That is the part that apparently you don't get. Obama has been calling for a change in the government in Egypt. However, it would be bad form for him to say "hey, Mubarak, GTFO." It's called diplomacy, look it up.
The point is he can't call for his ouster publicly because that is not the democratic way. He can and appears to be support fair elections that hopefully yield a government that the people want and who is friendly to the US. Hopefully the Muslim Brotherhood backs off their anti-US rhetoric and everything thing works out nice and tidy.
While I try to get a grasp on your slithery logic here, please explain, in as lucid a manner as possible, how your entire argument doesn't boil down to: "Obama needs to grow some balls and say something that will piss off somebody, as long it favors Israel. Diplomacy is for weaklings and pansies."
Oh for fu&%s sake, you ridiculous, intentionally obtuse troll: HE'S SAYING HE WANTS THE PEOPLE OF EGYPT TO DECIDE. There, is that clear enough for you? Now, would you please STFU and go invent some other graduate degree or something. Maybe you can give yourself a Phd in Trolling. Stewart "tallanvor" Rogers, Doctorate of Trollology. Has a nice ring to it...
Perhaps the world can unite against the obtuse and cruel trolling of "tallanvor." Hey Egypt: how about Mubarak stays until June 1, but tallanvor is banned from the interwebs forever? "Deal!" Folks, quit replying to him. these threads get ruined so quickly.
The issue is not whether Egyptian's should change government. Everyone agrees with this (except Mubarak). The issue is whether Mubarak should get to keep his job in this new government. To give a position on an issue that nobody is talking about is a definite dodge by Obama. The Egyptian people want to know whether they support their efforts to get rid of Mubarak. So does Israel. "What I want is a representative government in Egypt and I have confidence that if Egypt moves in an orderly transition process, they will have a government in Egypt that will work together with us"; is not an answer to that question. It is an answer to a question nobody is asking.
Pardon the interruption but I just wanted to say that tallanvor is one of the dumbest posters I have come across on this forum, if not the dumbest. Please carry on.
