Obama Planted the Seeds of Revolution???

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

But dictator appears to be an over statement.

How would you define his 'presidency' if not with the word 'dictatorship'?

Good discussion - getting late here, church tomorrow - night all!

 

[mandym]

How would you define his 'presidency' if not with the word 'dictatorship'?

Good discussion - getting late here, church tomorrow - night all!

Corrupt at best, pure evil most likely. Not that it is any better than dictator other than just different. My concept of dictator is they cannot be ousted or moved without blood shed. He did not have the support to be a dictator and it was only poor economics that instigated a largely peaceful uprising.

 

[Bro. Curtis]

Thanks brother (I am assuming that this is sincere )

It took me a long time to come to an opinion of this event - I kept my mouth shut until I did

I was sincere, I assure you. I make an effort here to make sure no one ever has to read my post twice to see what it really says.

 

[FR7 Baptist]

I believe both blacks and Hispanics would rise up support Obama to their deaths.

Talk about stereotyping. I know a black guy who voted for McCain. He works with me at my call center job and we also went to high school together. I didn't vote for Obama because I'm quasi-Hispanic; I voted for him because he was the best option. My Hispanic grandmother voted for McCain.

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

I was sincere, I assure you. I make an effort here to make sure no one ever has to read my post twice to see what it really says.

I know my brother, just a little bit of ribbing going on since we so seldom agree on the finer points of politics

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

... it was only poor economics that instigated a largely peaceful uprising.

You don't think the absolute lack of political choice in Egypt had anything to do with this? Remember there has not been a totally free election there in over 30 years.

From dictionary.com defining dictator

a person exercising absolute power, especially a ruler who has absolute, unrestricted control in a government without hereditary succession.

That certainly sounds like Mubarak to me.

 

[Aaron]

Islam must have a dictator. It is a culture in which the people cannot govern themselves. Its tenets are antithetical to nature, liberty and peace. It is lawless and violent and cannot be ruled except by totalitarianism.

Of course all people, Muslim or not, will groan under oppression, but they're desire is not for the liberty of self-rule, their desire is to rule in the stead of the present dictator. The cries for democracy are just propaganda.

So a "dictator" which is friendly to the U.S. is a good thing in a Muslim country.

 

[NiteShift]

...The only reason his downfall happened was because he lost the support of his buddies in Washington.

Mubarack didn't exactly lose his support in Washington up until the Obama administration saw which way the winds were blowing.

As recently as last May, the administration was discussing with Egypt aid that would be immune to "shifting winds in Washington".

He is now getting up ahead of the parade and 'leading'.

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

Mubarack didn't exactly lose his support in Washington up until the Obama administration saw which way the winds were blowing.

As recently as last May, the administration was discussing with Egypt aid that would be immune to "shifting winds in Washington".

He is now getting up ahead of the parade and 'leading'.

I don't deny that.

 

[SpiritualMadMan]

Actually...

I have just posted on "In The News", "A Terrorist Meets Jesus".

Which gives some information which I was not aware of....

obama didn't plant the seeds of revolution... carter did.

 

[Bro. Curtis]

I know my brother, just a little bit of ribbing going on since we so seldom agree on the finer points of politics

And I'm not sure we agree, here, but you have presented your arguments very well, and have caused me to stop & consider.....

 

[rbell]

I don't think we should have ever supported him. In fact I am sick of financial aid to most other countries we support. But dictator appears to be an over statement. This came to an end of power with no blood shed. The people called for it and it happened. What ever they may be is not under a dictatorship. Otherwise people would have had to die to make the change.

I think that in the early stages, this was complex.

Remember, Mubarak's ascenscion to power wasn't long after the Shah's demise, and Iran's subsequent descent into an Islamic fundamentalist caliphate.

Anyhow...remember: Anwar Sadat--Mubarak's predecessor--was assassinated. Mubarak's taking of the reins ended up more peaceful and orderly than was expected. So, over the years, he had "built up good will" in our country's eyes. Not to mention, that if you play the "comparison game" with other Islamic countries...Mubarak's Egypt didn't look that bad.

My point: I'm not sure that early on, he wasn't the best choice for Egypt. There were certainly many choices that were much worse. (Remember...his next door neighbor was Qaddafi from Libya). But, as with most people, power corrupted. The trappings of his office became too much to put down. And the Egyptian people lost.

And, like any political opportunist, Obama has been trying to figure out a way to ride the coattails of this event to get support for himself, and his agenda.

But since Obama's message has bounced around over time (no moral center or basic convictions will do that)...his message has appeared jumbled and unsteady.

My prayer is simply that the people of Egypt will be free, and that Islamic extremists from whatever stripe (Hamas, Muslim Brotherhood, Al Qaeda, or the run-of-the-mill camel-riding thug) will be kept at bay.

And I do want Obama to handle this well. No, I don't want him re-elected...but if he really botches this badly, lots of people die. Don't want that!

 

[rbell]

A clarification:

Not sure I was clear. I meant to say that in 1982, there's a distinct possibility in my mind that Mubarak did not desire power as he does now. People can change--positively or negatively. And we must consider what was in place 20-25 years ago:

• The threat of Soviet influence/domination of the region (Mubarak never liked the USSR much).
• Other thugs in the region:
  • Qaddafi of Libya was much more of a problem in the 1980's. Mubarak's Egypt was a good "buffer" geographically...and Mubarak often spoke out against Qaddafi's antics.
  • Ayatollah Khomeni's Iran.
  • Saddam Hussein.
  • Syria in the 1980's flirted with the Soviets, as well as the hyperfundy Islamic goons.
• As I said earlier...Mubarak's predecessor was assassinated. There had just been a peace accord signed betweeen Sadat (Egypt) and Menachem Begin (Israel). Reagan (President at the time) was trying to preserve an uneasy peace--he had enough on his plate without having to deal with Egyptian drama. He wasn't as autocratic then as he is now. My point: At that time, almost any US leader would have chosen Mubarak over the potential for Islamic Fundy chaos...precisely what had happened in Iran.

I'm critical of Obama. And he probably should have had a more distilled, and more consistent, message.

But on the "simple scale," this one's a bit tougher.

 

[AresMan]

I would prefer no dictator, and a pro-US dictator is still an enemy of freedom. The 'kiss-up' doctrine allows people to suffer just to benefit US interest. That is wrong.

Ding, ding ding! We have a winner!

Mercantilism is alive and well in the beliefs of too many who call themselves "conservatives."

 

[carpro]

I would prefer no dictator, and a pro-US dictator is still an enemy of freedom. The 'kiss-up' doctrine allows people to suffer just to benefit US interest. That is wrong.

Wouldn't everyone? But we have no say in the matter. Wishing for a dictator that is an enemy seems even more wrong, as well as kinda stupid.