What are you talking about? I didn't call anyone stupid. Not you, not Mubarak, not O'Reilly, not Obama. I believe that some of my third graders could draw the inference about Mubarak. Sorry if you felt I was calling you stupid. I never did. I'm merely commenting on your singular view of how the U.S. should conduct diplomacy, and the accepted way that it's been practiced worldwide for centuries. I also tried to show why it's been practiced that way. Like I said before, it's fine for you to disagree with The Obama administration, the Bush administration, The Clinton administration, The Bush Sr. administration, The Reagan administration, The Carter administration, The Ford Administration, the Nixon administration, The Johnson Administration, the Kennedy administration, The Eisenhower administration, and literally every other administration and the way they conducted foreign policy. I'll just agree to disagree. Sorry if you felt I was calling you stupid.
And I would say you guys need a course in predicate logic (which is what you should be referring to, not reading comprehension). "representative" is relative like say the word "fat". We just passed a healthcare bill most the country didn't want. does Are we a representative government? I would say yes others would say no. Mubarak probably claims his current government is representing the Egyptian people. Obama's demand for a "representative" government has no meaning because he doesn't say what he thinks representative means . Obama knows this that's why he said it.
I am pretty sure you mean "first-order logic," but you can clear that up for us as soon as you read this background information... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Predicate_logic http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-order_logic No, "representative" is descriptive, at least in the context in which Obama used it. The current government is led by a man who has been in power for thirty years and has ruled, according to many, with an iron fist. The demonstrators don't believe that they are being represented in their government, thus the protests. To one of those people, Obama calling for a "representative government" says to them pretty directly that Obama thinks Mubarak should go. We could delve into this Faux talking point if you like, but I will just say for now that this observation is misleading in many ways. Of course we are a representative government, the people elected Obama at least partially because of his promise to reform healthcare, then Obama passed healthcare reform. Representative government at its best. Yes, he said it that way because it was a diplomatic answer that implies different things to different people. To the people of Egypt, he was saying that he wanted their views represented in their government. To the people in the Egyptian government, he was saying that they need to get their act together so that the protestors are represented. It is called diplomacy. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diplomacy
Nope, The Egyptian protestors are angry at Obama and the US . If Obama came out and sided with them then they probably wouldn't be. Egyptians have no clue where Obama or the US stands. [/QUOTE]
You doubt this? really? You don't think it is a matter of opinion whether a government represents it's constituents? I am shocked.
[/QUOTE] You don't seem to understand the fact that the U.S. government's goal, as stated by themselves, is to ensure a successful and meaningful transition to democracy, not to win an opinion poll of protesters. '
You are really trying your darnedest to be as obtuse as possible, aren't you? Do you really think that somehow Obama secretly believes that Mubarak as president represents the will of the Egyptian people? I mean, I've seen some obstinately illogical trolls in my lifetime, but this one is starting to amaze.
http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2011/02/that-pre-game-obama-interview.html I think this is a really good take on the interview. Also: I think he is right. The Glenn Becks of the world are doing Obama a favor by focusing implausible conspiracy theories (which works for some people, for a period of time) instead of discussing actual policies. It makes it easier for Obama to present the choice as between him, a reasonable person, and loonies like Beck and Limbaugh rather than a choice between the merits of politicians and their policies.
I think Obama was vague as possible (you can claim any government is "representative") so he doesn't have to take a stance (like voting "present"). It was stated by Gladiator, Jep, and others that it is obvious that Obama's position is to side with the protesters in wanting Mubarak's removal. It is not obvious to the Egyptian or they would be showing Obama, US more love. Thus the purpose of the poll was to show that it is unclear what Obama's views are about Mubarak. I never claimed he should try to be popular amongst Egyptians.
I know you want it to mean that, but Obama was fairly vague because that is the diplomatic stance. Maybe, maybe not. Many of them might be highly pissed that the US has supported Mubarak for three decades, others might be anti-US for other reasons, but claiming that anti-US sentiments in Egypt are the direct result of Obama's statements is naive and laughable.
So you are saying he is "voting present", but that it is the correct thing to do in this case? Maybe, but I don't think so. anti-Obama sentiment. The article I linked claims Obama, not just the US, is very unpopular. That shouldn't have anything to do with the past three decades.
No, I am saying that he is using tact to give a diplomatic answer. YOU are the one who talks about "voting present." Diplomacy<>abstaining In many people's mind, Obama=US, just as Bush was seen as equal to the US during his presidency. I don't think that most foreigners distinguish much between the President and the country.
Yes, they appear to fluctuate based on who the President is, as I said. In most foreigners' minds, President=US. For example, in many Americans' minds, Saddam was Iraq, Putin was Russia, and Kim Jong Il is North Korea. Even though he is more of a figurehead than anything else, Ahmadinejad is Iran to many Americans.
The general perception that the nation of Egypt wants a change to a new government looks that way because that is the way it is being reported in the World press. That perception could very well be orchestrated. I think it would think it would be a naive to think the message isn't being influenced. Obama is probably having a good chuckle over the "he's in over his head" BS. You will never know what the CIA is doing but they are probably working to get the best outcome for the US. It could very well be that if you had a free press and informed elections the people might vote for the security of a more totalitarian government over the chaotic and undefined condition of a more democratic government.But again, you will never know. The 'will of the people' will only be what whoever writes the story says it is. It's like when people(cough tannallover) say "the people don't want mandated health care" when the political discourse is so swayed with lies and deceit from big pharma lobbyist. How can they know what is better without real information.
People are stupid. is that your argument? People do';t know what the pros and cons are of mandated healthcare because the press won't let them know. They can't possibly make an educated decision because the press just won't allow that. It's all mind control. paging Jared Lee Loughner.
We know for a fact that people were mislead regarding health care, because polls have shown the number that mistakenly believed it was a govt. takeover of health care, or that it had death panels, or the people who really did have a "keep your govt. hands off my medicare" approach. The polls showed plenty of people held those opinions and were against health care reform because of those mistaken ideas which were put out there by various members of congress who were mostly Republican. If you want to call the people who believed the misinformation stupid that's you calling them that not anyone else.
