Our Allies Wonder

[deacon blues]

Originally Posted by Jermyn Davidson

Good answer, but your application of supporting American interests breed contempt for a concept and our nation that prides itself as a symbol of how that concept works so well: DEMOCRACY.

Americans didn't want America to be the world's policeman-- so our President won't take us down that road. He's staying true to form by not bringing America into the forefront.

I am not confident these tribal, religously driven, jihadist loving people will unite in order to maintain a Western style democracy. The track record isn't good. If every Arab nation is run by totalitarian rule, why is that? There seems to be a pattern and that pattern unfortunately is that nations of these people seem to only work with a strong, firm hand. I hope Egypt and all the other Arab nations would embrace peace and freedom. I'm just doubtful that they will.

[deacon blues]

Originally Posted by scotty

I know its rare, but I gotta go with jermyn on this one.

Why would we support interest at the cost of the peoples will ? This is another country, not ours. I'm all for supporting our interest but when that support is used to make a people suffer then what does that make us ?

Here is the thing, if the people of Egypt put 2 and 2 together to come to the conclusion that it was America that supported this mans dictatorship that kept them in poverty then we have created a nation of anti americans.

Sticking your finger in the hole of the ........ while continuing to pour water in the other side.

It was in our interests to support the Iranian freedom movement and BO said nothing. Why turn on a man who maintained the peace with Israel for 30 years? Why turn on a man who sent troops and offered support in both Gulf Wars? It just doesn't make sense.

We'll see if these military leaders do the right thing. It may turn into another dictatorship. If so, let's hope they'll be pro-American.

[deacon blues]

Originally Posted by Jermyn Davidson

If the Egyptians make the wrong choices and it leads to war, then so be it. Yet, to stifle their ability to choose is not an American or Christian way of conducting business.

If it leads to war, so be it? That's crazy! Why would we embrace a policy that increases the possibility of instability in the Mid East versus maintaining what has worked for 30 years? We couldve recognized the unrest in Egypt, privately met with Mubarak pressured him to make concessions to the people to make daily life better for them and remove the source for their discontent. But to say "if there's war so be it?" That's just completely ridiculous!

It is good that we did not interfere with Iran too much.
It is good that have not interfered with Egypt too much.

It is a shame that we didn't say a word in support of the freedom protests in Iran. There could be a much friendlier government in Iran today had the prez offered at least words of support for them. BO was willing to sit down and talk to Ahmadinijhad, but he couldn't fly down and talk to Mubarak and been a broker of peace between the protestors and his regime?

Here's the problem with electing a president who had no executive leadership experience and one who had no foreign policy credentials. Its on the job training, and big mistakes are being made in the process.

[Sam]

Originally Posted by deacon blues

The hypocrisy I see is silence when Iranians want to throw out a dangerous unstable dictator who is our sworn enemy and is threatening Israel and the world nuclear weapons and lack of support for a dictator who has maintained peace and has cooperated with us in the two Gulf Wars. The HEIGHT of hypocrisy!

This is only my opinion, but perhaps our President did nothing about the demonstrations in Iran because they were against a dictator in an Islamic type religious government but did speak out about the protests in Egypt because by removing Mubarak they may wind up with an Islamic type religious government through the influence of the Muslim Brotherhood.