(Apologies to everyone, but this is mildly entertaining for me.) So now, you're saying that the problem is not whether Obama supports a change in the administration, but whether or not he supports a change in the administration that results in the same administrator? Just so that you can clarify your position properly, please bear in mind that Mubarak already fired his entire administration way back on January 29.
The only question the Egyptian people care about and the Israeli government is whether Obama supports Mubarak's ouster. The Egyptian people don't care about Mubarak's administration being fired if Mubarak does not leave. Nor do the Israelis. Obama should answer this question. This has always been my position and I have been quite clear, failure to understand that is on you.
Ahhh, OK. I get it now -- you're saying he should explicitly demand for Mubarak to resign. There is no need for diplomacy in that statement. But wait, you said earlier that that's not what you're saying, didn't you? I'm confused again!
Egyptians want Mubarak gone. That is what they care about (amongst other things). Does Obama support that? He hasn't said. Instead he responds with "Egypt should have a representative government" which could mean either. He should answer it because it is a very relevant issue to our allies and our country. I am not debating which side he should take, simply that he should take a side.
No, it is a diplomatic way of saying Mubarak needs to go. A representative govt. would not have Mubarak in it. Yet because Obama states it more diplomatically he strengthens ties with other allies in the middle east and improves our position.
I disagree. a representative government could very well have Mubarak in it in some capacity. strengthen ties with who? The Egyptian protesters seem pretty pissed at the USA. I doubt Israel appreciates Obama not taking a position on an issue that has great consequences for Israel's security.
I think you truly just don't understand foreign affairs if you think for one second that there wasn't communication between the U.S. and Israel on Egypt. Israel knows exactly where the U.S. stands on Egypt. Israel also understands why the U.S. doesn't want to make any more overt statements than they have. I think most everyone in this situation knows exactly where the U.S. stands and why the U.S. is diplomatically stating it's desires. Mubarak isn't in favor and wouldn't be representing the will of the people if he were to remain in government. I also disagree that the protesters are generally pissed at the U.S. They were carrying signs urging the U.S. to not back Mubarak saying we don't want to hate the U.S. There has been relatively little anger directed at the U.S. by the protesters. The ties we would strengthen would be with every single nation in the middle east that we would like their help in curtailing the more radical extremists with ties to terrorists. They are looking right now and thinking wondering if they agree to help the U.S. out and route out terror cells in their nations will the U.S. not stick by them at a later date. Bottom line is if you don't favor diplomacy then we'll just agree to disagree, and I'd also suggest looking more into how the U.S. conducts its foreign affairs now, and also in the past since it was created.
I don't think you're getting what our friend is really trying to hammer home here: Israel is our only ally in the middle east. We don't need to be diplomatic with anybody else - they are all tyrants and terrorists anyway.
The end game for this is Mubarak calling for elections, parties would have some time to organize, the government will allow a free-er press, people communicating in ways that never existed before will provide a secular influence, but their will be a solid but moderate Muslim Theocratic Party, and stability will be arrived at through compromise and consensus building. Turkey at best?(nah, not NATO or anything) But the Army will be an ally of the US, the safety of the Canal will be assured. Egypt's government will work with but demand more from Israel. It'll be fine. The US diplomatic corps will do a good job.
Yes, I am certain that the one question that the Egyptian people care about is whether "Obama supports Mubarak's ouster." They could not care less about whether the military will side with Mubarak, whether their protests will have the intended effect, or whether they will eventually get the opportunity to choose their own leadership. They are all glued to C-SPAN with bated breath just salivating for the President of the United States to say that Mubarak should go. He HAS answered the question, I posted the quote where Obama clearly says that he wants the people of Egypt to be able to choose their own government. Given the fact that they obviously don't support Mubarak, it seems crystal clear to me that Obama meant that Mubarak needs to go. Of course, he didn't say "Mubarak needs to go" because that would not be a diplomatic answer. The failure to understand here is directly on you.
if Egyptian people wants = Mubarak oustered and Obama wants = Egyptian people wants then Obama wants = Mubarak oustered
I am sure they also care about the price of bread. I was talking about in reference to Obama. Myself and the liberal NYT disagree. What he declared was that Egypt won;t go back to the government it was. Whatever the hell that means.
from the link i posted: Cheney, a frequent critic of Obama, offered no opinions on Obama's handling of the crisis but said it was important to conduct diplomacy in private. "It is very hard for some foreign leader to act on U.S. advice in a visible way," he said. is he wrong?
Hey now, you shouldn't think logically, that is not what the D&D is for. It is for completly ignoring logic and just bash the people who disagree with you.
I teach my third graders when reading that sometimes it's important to look at the clues that the author gives and then use your own mind to draw inferences. It improves comprehension. The clues the author has given. Egypt won't go back to the way it was. Egypt will have a representative govt. A representation of the Egyptian populace would be a govt. without Mubarak. I believe I have third graders that could draw the inference of where the U.S. stands with regards of Mubarak staying on as part of the govt.
you are drawing bad inference. "representative" is an opinion not a fact. Thus you can't make the claim. For example, Americans don't vote on Supreme Court Justices. Are we a representative government? If Egyptians got to vote on some of their government and not all, would it be representative? I can list a thousand ways Mubarak could keep himself in power and meet Obama's "representative" criteria. You shouldn't be teaching kids if you insist on calling people stupid. You aren't mature enough.
He isn't calling you stupid, he (and the rest of us) are pointing out why the things you are SAYING are stupid. You have shown an inability to comprehend the tactful and diplomatic ways that Obama has called for Mubarak's ouster, as such, it leads reasonable people to believe that your reading comprehension could use some work. FB offered some observations on basic reading comprehension since you seem to be having trouble with yours. I don't believe that you are stupid, but the things you are saying are just plain silly.
