patrick.net

An ally is under attack and Obama and his team support the opposition. Throwing your ally under the bus is a trust busting measure. Having a rerun of the the Iranian situation is a probability and would be horrendous for the US.

1) The opposition is not led by clerics seeking to establish a theocracy.

2) What good is an "ally" that is correctly viewed as an illegitimate autocratic ruler, who suppresses by torture and holding of political prisoners, and hated by his people?

Most importantly,

3) How does supporting such a ruler publicly when they are clearly on their way out no matter what the US does, affect the opinion of the US in the arab word, when the US claims to be for democracy?

You have no idea what is going on behind the scenes, so your accusation of the administrations actions as being amateurish are absurd. Stating publicly that he should do just shows Obama is in the right side of history.

"An ally is under attack and Obama and his team support the opposition. Throwing your ally under the bus is a trust busting measure. Having a rerun of the the Iranian situation is a probability and would be horrendous for the US."

Really? You know if he didn't say anything then someone else would be posting a totally different comment. How is this anything like the Iranian situation. It's not.

"Obama’s actions seem amateurish and puzzling. I wonder what the Muslim Brotherhood’s position is on honor killings, blasphemy laws, the peace treaty with Israel, homosexual sex, religious freedom, and birth control."

Who is the Muslim brotherhood? Are you classifying all muslims in one group? I thought you were just calling egyptians as allies.

"My guess is that they are against all of the above except for honor killings and blasphemy laws. In our country some of us are against homosexual sex between consenting adults and birth control but are called to task for using violence against those that share different beliefs."

Listen Pal, sometimes you can't talk your way out of a fight. That's a historical fact. I am not even sure what this paragraph is trying to comminucate. Its a ramble.

"Mubarak should not be urged to leave publicly but privately and not before a framework is adopted for free and fair elections and protections for all citizens. If there should be as little freedom in Egypt after Mubarak is gone then his leaving would make matters worse."

I think the U.S. will support any form of legitimit democracy that shows up in that region both publicly and privately. These protests are spreading throughout the region. Could you imagine any U.S. president staying in office for 30 years? I know we wouldn't stand for it.

Truthplease says

Who is the Muslim brotherhood?

"the source of all problems in the Islamic world." -- Saudi Interior Minister Prince Nayef

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muslim_Brotherhood#Saudi_Arabia

I know we wouldn’t stand for it.

Depends on the alternative. Presidente Carter 1977-2009 (handing over to Presidente Obama) might have worked better than what we actually got : )

I'm fairly certain that if an asteroid were on an earth-impact trajectory, this article I'm linking would be real:

Republicans Vote To Repeal Obama-Backed Bill That Would Destroy Asteroid Headed For Earth

I do know there is a lot of diversity among the Muslims...

How about we allow other countries to decide what is best for them. If the Egyptians want change, who are we to tell them how to do it?

Let us turn the clock ahead. Mubarak leaves Egypt and there are fair elections but no framework for religious freedom and no settled policy for dealing with Israel and the Suez Canal. After the election is held the country is ruled by those that join with Syria and Iran to oppose Israel and create an Islamic Republic in Egypt. The upshot of this would be war with Israel and UN troops involved along with the United States in enforcing a cease fire for the forseeable future.

This would be bad for the United States and would be a blueprint for what would happen in Jordan, Yemen and any other country where the rulers are overthrown without a constitutional framework established before the new management takes over.

Tenouncetrout says

I’d tell the people of Egypt the truth.

“Don’t worry, we have a better President for you. He’s a Doctor, and owns a Vineyard in France, and He’s a Libra, and likes to spend his spare time taking bribes and crushing uprisings.”

Have you been dropping acid? Who is "we"? How exactly do "we" have a better president. "we" haven't sent the man in. "we" don't support him. "we" don't really have any say in the matter at all. Why is it "we" are the world's largest supporter of democratic elections as long as who "we" want is going to win, if not then "we" need to do something. Everyone else in the world realizes the "we" are frequently hypocrites.

brucebruce says

Let us turn the clock ahead. Mubarak leaves Egypt and there are fair elections but no framework for religious freedom and no settled policy for dealing with Israel and the Suez Canal. After the election is held the country is ruled by those that join with Syria and Iran to oppose Israel and create an Islamic Republic in Egypt. The upshot of this would be war with Israel and UN troops involved along with the United States in enforcing a cease fire for the forseeable future.
This would be bad for the United States and would be a blueprint for what would happen in Jordan, Yemen and any other country where the rulers are overthrown without a constitutional framework established before the new management takes over.

So what exactly should "we" be doing to influence the will of the people of a sovereign nation? Perhaps "they" should have stepped into the US political process during the Bush Gore election to avoid the disaster in Iraq. After all fair's fair.

bob2356 says

Tenouncetrout says

I’d tell the people of Egypt the truth.
“Don’t worry, we have a better President for you. He’s a Doctor, and owns a Vineyard in France, and He’s a Libra, and likes to spend his spare time taking bribes and crushing uprisings.”

Have you been dropping acid? Who is “we”? How exactly do “we” have a better president. “we” haven’t sent the man in. “we” don’t support him. “we” don’t really have any say in the matter at all. Why is it “we” are the world’s largest supporter of democratic elections as long as who “we” want is going to win, if not then “we” need to do something. Everyone else in the world realizes the “we” are frequently hypocrites.

What are you, a poor History Student?
Ask every Problematic world leader in the last 50 years who "We" are.
"We" put their asses where they are. Of course "We" are also good at taking them back out.