So, Conservatives, do you support Mubarak or not?
- Thread starter Jarod
- Start date
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
Well... as opposed to support = diddly squat.... yeah.
Honestly? Of all of the dark, twisted and borderline insane sentiments you have expressed on the board, that may be the worst...
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
What is dark, twisted, or borderline insane about stating the obvious? You're weird! Either you fuckwits really mean what you say about "standing with" the people of Egypt, or you mean what you did when it was Iraq, and the people are on their own! You can't have it both ways, you can't say you "stand with" someone, so long as you don't have to do anything... that's not "standing with" them, that's copping out, being a chickenshit liberal, which is fine... let's just be honest about it though, no need to lie and pretend you are for something you're not.
Do conservatives always invade countries that have oppressive regimes when they support the people within those countries?
Socrtease
Verified User
The people, Men mostly, that did this, were Mubarek supporters. They began to tell Amanpour that they wanted Mubarak. AND that they hated us. Both. We have no dog in this fight. The protestors support the Islamic Brotherhood, and they HATE the US. The men who chased Amanpour into her car were Mubarak supporters, and they HATE the US as well.
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
Not always, most of the time, economic and international sanctions work.
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
Still trying to grasp a clarification of what "stand with the people of Egypt" means? If you aren't going to do anything.... how is your "standing with" them doing any good?
Sanctions? Namby pamby sanctions...really?
But you just agreed that your view is that support = invasion?
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
No, you claimed that was my viewpoint, I didn't completely agree. The word "support" is usually accompanied by some action of support, that's just basic common sense. To say that you "support" something, generally means you are willing to take some action to make that happen. Otherwise, "support" just becomes a meaningless and insignificant word.
Your boyfriend Jarhead said he "stands with the people of Egypt" and I just wanted to better understand what that meant. I don't suppose he is going to Egypt to march in protest with them, and I doubt he plans to send them money... so what the fuck did that statement mean in actuality? He already said, and you clarified, he doesn't advocate invading Egypt, so how exactly is he "standing with" the people? What if the people who stand with Mubarak decide to start committing genocide on the people who are protesting? Do the words "stand with the people of Egypt" take on any different meaning?
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
They worked with Libya and have worked in the past with N. Korea. UN sanctions are generally thought to be the 'diplomatic' approach you libtards believe is preferable to military action, I wouldn't be calling them names, dude.
apple0154
MEOW
Standing with them can mean respecting the final outcome. How many demonstrators are there? 1,000? 10,000? One million? So what? There are over 80 million Egyptians! Do one million have the right to dictate the government under which the other 79 million must live?
Why can't the western world realize democracy, as we know it, is not what all other people want? Their government and religion are one which is, if one takes a moment to think about it, the logical way to live. Why would one NOT live by their beliefs?
Imagine having a vote in church and deciding which Commandments should be repealed or what should be added.
The way of life, the understanding, in many eastern countries is that the people DO NOT know how to govern themselves. That is what their religion is for. In a way not all that dissimilar to the Constitution. If people knew how to govern themselves and there was a true democracy then changing the Constitution would take 50% + 1 vote to change it. Obviously, the Founding Fathers did not believe in true democracy.
I wonder what some folks would think of the idea a foreign power interfere here and change the rules so the Constitution could be changed by a 50% + 1 vote. Would those who advocate the US get involved in Egypt support a foreign power if four times as many protesters here demanded the Constitution be changed? (Egypt = 83 million. US = 307 million or roughly 4 times as many citizens.)
If the people filled a few squares in a few cities, vandalized a few buildings....would you, Dixie, back the foreign power and protesters and demand change to the Constitution?
Where would you stand, Dix?
Last edited:
Minister of Truth
Practically Perfect
Hey Gerud,
I support Mubarak.
Kindest Personal Regards,
Threedee
I support Mubarak.
Kindest Personal Regards,
Threedee
You post, taken in its entirety is convoluted to say the least....rambling at best....
Everyone lives by their beliefs for the most part....everyone....the good, the bad, the just, the unjust, etc....
The Founding Fathers recognized the danger of mob tyranny..or pure democracy, thats why we have a 'representative' democracy.....so a simple majority cannot force injustice or enslavement on a minority.....
If the Muslims...Islamic religion has shown us anything, its that a small minority like the Taliban, for example, can force its will on a vast majority of Muslims through religion, with brutal force....
Based Chad
Was it me?
You answer the question first, damn yankee.
Do you think mubarak needs to crack down in the name of real politik.
DamnYankee
Loyal to the end
I think we need to stay out of the affairs of a sovereign country that hasn't done anything to warrant our intervention.
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
What if the final outcome is, Mubarak and his thugs kill thousands in a maniacal genocidal rampage? Do we respect that outcome? Is that what you mean by "standing with the people" of Egypt? What if the Muslim Brotherhood usurps power in the wake of Mubarak's departure? Are we okay with that too? What you are articulating is NOT "standing with" the people of Egypt, it is standing in indifference, willing to accept whatever fate befalls the people of Egypt, and unwilling to do anything to alter a disastrous outcome for them.
Now, that's alright if you feel that way, but let's be honest about it here! Instead of saying "I stand with the people of Egypt!" Just say, "I don't give a fuck about the people of Egypt, I'll accept whatever happens to them!"
I don't know how many there are, by the looks of the TV, everyone in Egypt is out in the streets. Now suddenly, you start talking about who has the "right" to decide the government, as if they live in a democracy!
So why did you make the last statement about who has the right to dictate the government... in the Islamic world, the mullahs and clerics decide the government, not the people...not even a million people... a few religious leaders, that's who determines the government and the laws. Do 15 fanatics have the right to dictate the government under which the other 79,999,985 live?
And before I buy into this crazy bullshit about how the rest of the world doesn't really give a shit about freedom, please show us some examples! Show us these people who want to be enslaved and ruled over by a tyrant instead of having a political voice and control of their government! When I hear from some of these actual people, I might be inclined to believe this load of absolute horse shit, until then, I can't believe it.
Maybe because a tyrant dictator has enslaved the people and they don't have the right to determine their representative governance? Maybe because radicals have perverted the religion in order to enslave and control people? Maybe because some nitwit thousands of miles away, has decided they don't really want to live in freedom? I can think of LOTS of reasons why people wouldn't live by their beliefs... but it is interesting you just made the argument that "separation of church and state" is completely illogical.
I think we have to wait and see what will be the outcome.
The United States does not need to get involved, except with the rest of the world when and if the wholesale slaughter of civilians begins to happen.
The outcome is up to the Egyptians and we will just have to deal with the outcome.
Mubarak was our guy for a long time, whether we personally like him or not, he kept the peace with Israel. He is corrupt and most likely ruthless, but as with other leaders in the ME, we have found that this iron fist is the way they conduct politics.
Education for women is the answer in the ME, that is my short solution for the area.
The United States does not need to get involved, except with the rest of the world when and if the wholesale slaughter of civilians begins to happen.
The outcome is up to the Egyptians and we will just have to deal with the outcome.
Mubarak was our guy for a long time, whether we personally like him or not, he kept the peace with Israel. He is corrupt and most likely ruthless, but as with other leaders in the ME, we have found that this iron fist is the way they conduct politics.
Education for women is the answer in the ME, that is my short solution for the area.
Based Chad
Was it me?
this is bullhit rana. We are deeply involved. We've been funding this military for thirty years. This whole, "we have no influence" meme is complete crap. Whatever happens will be with our blessing. And i think we will install the muslim brother hood, there is not totalitrianism which compares to theocratic totalitarianism, and that what we like best.