Does Anyone in Obama's Adminstration Know What Our Egyptian Policy Is?

NigelTufnel said:
I don't really see the relevance of your pictures. Your the dumbass claiming that you can't treat one dictator one way and another dictator another. Clinton didn't say that. Obama didn't say that.

The fact of the matter is that Mubarak has been an ally of the United States for quite some time now and, given the relationship between Egypt and the United States, has had a close relationship with several United States presidents and I've never claimed otherwise.
Click to expand...

Then why in the fuck do you keep posting a picture of Mubarak and Bush? Why did Jarhead mention that Cheney called him "a friend?" It fucking sounds like you retards are attempting to tie the right to Mubarak, as if the right condones his human rights abuses or something! You're just pathetic hacks. You have no ethics or morals, and no integrity. You'll sit in judgment of Mubarak and the right, and act like it's some terrible thing that Bush/Cheney were friends with him, but never mention his relationship with the Clinton's or Obama... why is that?
 
Dixie said:
Then why in the fuck do you keep posting a picture of Mubarak and Bush? Why did Jarhead mention that Cheney called him "a friend?" It fucking sounds like you retards are attempting to tie the right to Mubarak, as if the right condones his human rights abuses or something! You're just pathetic hacks. You have no ethics or morals, and no integrity. You'll sit in judgment of Mubarak and the right, and act like it's some terrible thing that Bush/Cheney were friends with him, but never mention his relationship with the Clinton's or Obama... why is that?
Click to expand...


But I did mention his relationship with the Clintons and Obama. You quoted it. And Republican Presidents and the right have condoned his human rights abuses, as have Democratic presidents. I'm not the one pretending otherwise with this "it can't be one way for one dictator and another way for another" dumbassery.

And I like to post the Bush-Mubarak photo because know-nothings like you pretend that Bush had an adversarial relationship with Mubarak and that Obama, in speaking of support for democracy, is embracing the "Bush Doctrine" as relates to Egypt.
 
NigelTufnel said:
But I did mention his relationship with the Clintons and Obama. You quoted it. And Republican Presidents and the right have condoned his human rights abuses, as have Democratic presidents. I'm not the one pretending otherwise with this "it can't be one way for one dictator and another way for another" dumbassery.

And I like to post the Bush-Mubarak photo because know-nothings like you pretend that Bush had an adversarial relationship with Mubarak and that Obama, in speaking of support for democracy, is embracing the "Bush Doctrine" as relates to Egypt.
Click to expand...

No, you can't have double standards... You can't claim that we have to do something about Mubarak because he is mean to his people, when you spent nearly 8 years arguing that we didn't need to take action against Saddam because he was mean to his people. Either tyranny and dictatorship is a bad thing we should oppose, or it's something we have to accept and live with. Human rights abuse is either a deplorable thing we must attempt to remedy, or it's none of our business and we should just stay the hell out of it. If we're going to "stand with" the people of Egypt, then we should have also been willing to "stand with" the people of Iraq... otherwise, you're just a two-faced hypocrite.
 
NigelTufnel said:
bush_mubarak.jpg
Click to expand...

I would show one of Obama and Mubarak, but Obama was bowing so low he went out of the shot.

:)
 
NigelTufnel said:
But I did mention his relationship with the Clintons and Obama. You quoted it. And Republican Presidents and the right have condoned his human rights abuses, as have Democratic presidents. I'm not the one pretending otherwise with this "it can't be one way for one dictator and another way for another" dumbassery.

And I like to post the Bush-Mubarak photo because know-nothings like you pretend that Bush had an adversarial relationship with Mubarak and that Obama, in speaking of support for democracy, is embracing the "Bush Doctrine" as relates to Egypt.
Click to expand...

Mubarak didn't invade quwait or use weapons of mass destruction on his own people. Eveyone knows that American allies are all ways more moral and smarter then non american allies. Only an ediot dictator would choose to be americas enemy.
 
Dixie said:
No, you can't have double standards... You can't claim that we have to do something about Mubarak because he is mean to his people, when you spent nearly 8 years arguing that we didn't need to take action against Saddam because he was mean to his people. Either tyranny and dictatorship is a bad thing we should oppose, or it's something we have to accept and live with. Human rights abuse is either a deplorable thing we must attempt to remedy, or it's none of our business and we should just stay the hell out of it. If we're going to "stand with" the people of Egypt, then we should have also been willing to "stand with" the people of Iraq... otherwise, you're just a two-faced hypocrite.
Click to expand...


I think someone ought to sit you down and have a discussion with you about the ways of the world and disabuse you of your puerile fancies. I'd volunteer for the job, but I'd rather rip off my fingernails and light myself on fire.
 
Dixie said:
No, you can't have double standards... You can't claim that we have to do something about Mubarak because he is mean to his people, when you spent nearly 8 years arguing that we didn't need to take action against Saddam because he was mean to his people. Either tyranny and dictatorship is a bad thing we should oppose, or it's something we have to accept and live with. Human rights abuse is either a deplorable thing we must attempt to remedy, or it's none of our business and we should just stay the hell out of it. If we're going to "stand with" the people of Egypt, then we should have also been willing to "stand with" the people of Iraq... otherwise, you're just a two-faced hypocrite.
Click to expand...

So you think that a no fly ban, UN weapons inspectors and sanctions were doing nothing?
 
tom prendergast said:
So you think that a no fly ban, UN weapons inspectors and sanctions were doing nothing?
Click to expand...

Are we seriously going to debate the Iraq War again? Really?

No! None of those things did ANYTHING until we had 150,000 troops on ships off his coast! Whenever Saddam knew he had pushed it too far, he would cooperate just enough to make it go away... kind of like the punk in NK... He messed with the wrong president at the wrong time. He was given every chance to cooperate with the international community, and he refused to the bitter end, to do so in an honest manner. I am sorry you loved Saddam so much, and didn't want to see him go... but he had to go. I just find it stunning that the same nitwits who were so in love with Saddam, are now calling for the removal of Mubarak from power in Egypt... on the grounds that he's a bad guy!
 
Oh, brother, saddle up , yehaaaaaw! Put on your I love George Bush caboy hat and let's all mosey on over to Egypt and kill us some arabs! yehaaaawww!

Taking Saddam out destabilized the area and it is still in the middle of change and won't be done for some time. I hope it just bring peace and not WWIII
 
Rana said:
Oh, brother, saddle up , yehaaaaaw! Put on your I love George Bush caboy hat and let's all mosey on over to Egypt and kill us some arabs! yehaaaawww!

Taking Saddam out destabilized the area and it is still in the middle of change and won't be done for some time. I hope it just bring peace and not WWIII
Click to expand...

You lie!
 
Rana said:
Oh, brother, saddle up , yehaaaaaw! Put on your I love George Bush caboy hat and let's all mosey on over to Egypt and kill us some arabs! yehaaaawww!

Taking Saddam out destabilized the area and it is still in the middle of change and won't be done for some time. I hope it just bring peace and not WWIII
Click to expand...

You are out of your gourd. The 'destabilization' comes from the incessant bleating from the liberal left, and a diametric change in our position against radical Islamic terror abroad. The more 'passive' approach has led to an embolden insurgency, and now the task of eliminating the radical threat is even greater. It will continue to grow, and at some point... (maybe after radical Muslims take over Europe?) we'll have to send hundreds of thousands of our boys to their deaths, to stop a seemingly unstoppable enemy --AGAIN! You libtards never learn a thing from history, you don't understand history, and you are destined to repeat the same mistakes all over again and again and again, for as long as liberals are around, I guess.
 
Dixie said:
You are out of your gourd. The 'destabilization' comes from the incessant bleating from the liberal left, and a diametric change in our position against radical Islamic terror abroad. The more 'passive' approach has led to an embolden insurgency, and now the task of eliminating the radical threat is even greater. It will continue to grow, and at some point... (maybe after radical Muslims take over Europe?) we'll have to send hundreds of thousands of our boys to their deaths, to stop a seemingly unstoppable enemy --AGAIN! You libtards never learn a thing from history, you don't understand history, and you are destined to repeat the same mistakes all over again and again and again, for as long as liberals are around, I guess.
Click to expand...

Radical Islam taking over Europe. That seems like Europes fault not the democrates. It doesn't matter if the democrates learn from history just as long as the euopeans do. Do you think europeans are more pathetic then democrates?
 
hotdog said:
Radical Islam taking over Europe. That seems like Europes fault not the democrates. It doesn't matter if the democrates learn from history just as long as the euopeans do. Do you think europeans are more pathetic then democrates?
Click to expand...

Yes. In fact, I think that is where the 'democrats' (more specifically, liberals) get it from! They are absolutely enamored with the Europeans. I still blame liberal dems for changing US policy in the war on terror. They pulled a page right out of Neville Chamberlain's playbook, and gullible Americans, who were mostly too stupid to comprehend world history, fell for it hook, line, and sinker. ....We have FED the alligator... now we'll get to see if he won't eat us!
 
Dixie said:
Yes. In fact, I think that is where the 'democrats' (more specifically, liberals) get it from! They are absolutely enamored with the Europeans. I still blame liberal dems for changing US policy in the war on terror. They pulled a page right out of Neville Chamberlain's playbook, and gullible Americans, who were mostly too stupid to comprehend world history, fell for it hook, line, and sinker. ....We have FED the alligator... now we'll get to see if he won't eat us!
Click to expand...

What choice did Neville Chamberlain have? The British people were anti war, he didn't have any realiable allies and Hitler gave europe every assurance that his ambitions were limited.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top