Why are some on the left calling for the President to proactively pick a side in another ME affair?

[phleshdef]

I for one have had enough of that shit. If Egypt's people want to start a revolution and fix their government corruption problems, then more power to them. I support them in heart. But I don't want us getting dragged into their problem. We can't afford it. We've had enough of that. And we all know where sticking our nose in middle eastern affairs have all ready gotten us over the past 3 decades or so. Why in the world are some on the left demanding that this President stick our collective noses once again where it doesn't belong?

I don't want to see us taking any sides if we don't have to. And right now we don't have to. We've yet to do so in the middle east and not receive a shitty result back... whether that result be us invading a country and upsetting its natural order or us being the target of cultivated hatred and terrorism because of how we chose to ally ourselves. To hell with that. If I wanted even more neocon nonsense, I'd have voted for McCain.

Enough.

[treestar]

1. Doesn't matter what is in the news, it is used to bash Obama

Some people have no concept of diplomacy at all. If Obama did what they want, what would happen? They have no idea.

They seem to want the POTUS to be their puppet. As if they were really the President. And they would make very bad Presidents themselves.

[rury]

16. K&R treestar!!

A toast to you:toast:for speaking the truth!

[AtomicKitten]

22. Yep.

:fistbump:

[Rosa Luxemburg]

69. The Republicans and their Lonny Party attachment are amateurs

[tekisui]

2. Our noses have been stuck deep in Egypt and the ME's affairs for decades.

"I don't want to see us taking any sides if we don't have to. And right now we don't have to. We've yet to do so in the middle east and not receive a shitty result back."

What is going on this week is a shitty result of years of support for a corrupt despot. As you say, I have had enough of that shit. Blowback is a son of a bitch.

[phleshdef]

3. Really? No shit? I didn't know that, I totally didn't say as much in my OP.

[tekisui]

6. So, are you suggesting we quit support Mubarak with a billion+ dollars a year?

I'm not sure I follow.

[phleshdef]

8. We should whatever we diplomatically need to do to NOT contribute to the rocking of the boat.

Beyond that, we got enough of our own problems to deal with.

[tekisui]

11. We have been rocking the boat, that is my point.

We are major supporters of the oppressive regime that led to the instability. It is blowback. It is impossible to be neutral when we are THE supportive ally.

There is no such thing as the US being neutral in this or the US not affecting the outcome. We don't know what Obama said to Mubarak in private, but we have great leverage and investment.

[treestar]

18. Support your thesis we are responsible for this government

Egypt may find that to be rather insulting that they had nothing to do with it.

[tekisui]

23. WIthout the US propping Mubarak up all this time and

looking the other way while he oppressed the people of Egypt, there would be no revolt. We bankroll him and keep him in power, year in and year out. Are we going to turn a blind eye again?

And, no we aren't 'responsible' in the sense of full ownership, we are contributors and facilitators of his regime.

[stevenleser]

77. Yes, because a lack of support and complete 50 year embargo really worked with Cuba, 32 yrs Iran

... North Korea, etc., etc.

Do you realize how ridiculous what you are saying is? The US has pretty close to absolute zero culpability here for Mubarak as a country and Obama and his administration certainly have zero culpability.

[barbiegeek]

67. It's not a billion quit exageratting.

[msongs]

4. I would prefer he stand up against our republicans n let Egypt work out its own issues nt

[phleshdef]

7. What? no "lol" this time?

Snark aside, you are correct.

[bluestateguy]

5. The neo-cons were doing the same thing during the Iranian protests in 2009

Why must the US stick its nose into everybody's business around the world?

Liberals and conservatives are just as bad with this meddling impulse.

[snagglepuss]

9. The US has been picking sides in Egypt for decades. The side of dictators.

People want the US to use this opportunity to do the right thing.

[phleshdef]

12. Why? So those people can just replace him with another dictator?

[jberryhill]

13. The "right thing" being what? Telling the Egyptians whom should lead them?

How about if we give Democracy a chance for a change?

[tekisui]

14. You can't be neutral on a moving train.

Once again, we are siding with the dictators.

[vaberella]

30. So what would you like Obama to do...

What if this uproar doesn't pan out and the dictator comes back into power and since we all have to work together. We just burnt our bridges by taking sides in something we really had no right. Using the excuse of the past is nonsense considering we have a different president now who doesn't wish to take a side. Would you prefer us to send in military to support the citizens and when that happens we end up inciting a war...because it wouldn't take much to set some people off and at the moment Mubarak is still the leader of his nation.

[Name removed]

36. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[vaberella]

41. That seems to be it. Oh...did you read his statement. It's brilliant.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=433x602387

[vaberella]

28. And we have a new President who won't be picking sides...why then is this a problem?! n/t

[jberryhill]

10. Well put

The entire point of promoting Democracy is that it is up to the people of the country in question what sort of government they would like to have.

People power revolutions worked in the Philippines and Eastern Europe.

It is up to the Egyptians to figure out how they want to move forward, and it is not up to us to dictate that to them.

What we have done is to threaten to cut off aid if violent repression is used. So Mubarak has to fish or cut bait.

[The Straight Story]

15. Because if Obama did it could give a ton of support to the protestors - think back to ww2

People said similar things "don't pick sides, don't get involved, let's play nice"

So when people here yell about bush and chase and the nazi's I can say 'well, it was better for them to remain neutral and play the game than to actually stand for something and for one side'?

[JI7]

17. those are different situations and we have a mostly bad record with our involvement

in the middle east.

on reason these things probably wouldn't happen with bush or another republican in office is that the leaders would use the big bad america with a thug like Bush as a way to direct the anger of the people onto others rather than their own leaders.

[treestar]

21. If Obama did that, there would be posts about how he is a corporatist

interfering with the will of the people of Egypt and we all know that.

[vaberella]

34. He's already considered that.

Look up post and you'll see that many people use the argument that in the past we've tampered with the will of the people. Here on out we're taking a position not to tamper and yet people want us to do it, since we've done it before. It doesn't make any sort of sense does it?!

[Name removed]

68. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[vaberella]

32. We didn't pick sides until Japan forced us into war with a direct attack.

What is your point? By the time we entertained WW2 the war was winding down. Further more...we're not living in the time of WW2. We have to learn we need to work with people who don't like sometimes and if this doesn't pan out we'll have to deal with this same leaders. You guys have no comprehension of what it means to be diplomatic.

[The Straight Story]

35. "Diplomatic" sounds likes double talk for not having the courage to say what side you are on

Why is it we make excuses for our well paid politicians when they cannot even have the guts to say what they really feel?

I don't want 'diplomats' who try to appease everyone, I want someone who actually believes in something and stands for it. How hard is that?

Do you stand for things? Are you afraid to upset folks here on DU like me? Are you willing to tell me I am wrong? If so, I have a lot more respect for you than I do some of our politicians who are trying to just play all sides and please everyone.

Simple fact - you cannot keep up the whole pleasing of everyone. It will, as it has many times, come back to bite you in the ass.

Stand for something, even if it means people hate you for it.

Thank god that some people in our history actually stood up for causes and ideals instead of sucking up for 'political' reasons.

Some things you do not compromise on.

[phleshdef]

37. Its not our place to continue "standing for something" in the middle east.

We need to leave that area of the world the fuck alone all ready. We've taken more than enough stands there as it is and all its gotten us is a bunch of bad situations.

LOL @ Courage. Sounds like some chest beating Bush bullshit.

[vaberella]

39. You need to take an international relations class.

The reason why "diplomacy" is used is because we have our self-interests at hand. If we want something or may need something in the future...you use diplomacy even if you have to deal with some unsavory people. It's how it works. I'm sure, more often than not---England did not want to deal with our leaders as well. We didn't have fabulous Presidents every single term. But rather than challenge us and what we may have or have not done people tended to keep their mouths shut. Because they may have a self-interest to keep us as a friend.

The point being is this. We have no way of knowing which way this can turn and if the citizens will be the victors. If they are, who are they going to have in place and for how long will they be in disarray. If they lose we'll be dealing with Mubarak---and what many people here, who want us to make a decision keep saying is that we're dropping huge dollars in Egypt---which would say we have a self-interest. We bash the leaders who we're giving this money to, for whatever reason, and they still remain the leaders in the end--that can bite us on the ass.

You see it as weak--it's a smart move. You know your hand and you remain neutral or as neutral as you can given the situation.

The idea is not to keep pleasing everyone. I'm not sure where you're getting that from. This is far from pleasing everyone. It's about how to keep your nose about instigating a possible war which we might be pulled into. I have a question...let me ask you this. What if this was going in Iraq about 5 years ago. And the Iraqi people were demanding our intervention. You'd want us to go into Iraq? A sovereign nation. Or just talk as people were dying?! What would your best way of intervening be?

At times words don't do shit if you don't put a bit of force behind it. We could say what we want--but what does that mean to the people. If they hear us speaking about how they deserve this and that---they'd expect us, some of whom may expect us to intervene. Would you be willing to send our military in? If not...then it would be recommended to keep your mouth shut.

This is not our fight. We let it play out and that is all we could. If we had gotten involved in the Iranian situation it could have been detrimental to us since they have nuclear weapons. We don't get involved in domestic issues like this and I prefer that Obama doesn't get involved in it. I'm really surprised by people who are advocating this but in the same breath are against the Iraq war, which was later sold as a human rights intervention when the WMD thing was a fail.

[treestar]

51. We'd always be at war without diplomacy!

Fortunately, the President is an adult. And not a Republican. We were against Bush shunning diplomacy.

[Name removed]

47. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[DrToast]

19. In Iran (2009), Republicans were criticized for saying Obama needs to pick a side

Interesting, no?

[Bjorn Against]

20. The US is currently spending 1.5 billion a year on aid to Egypt

The very weapons that are being used against protesters right now were funded by our tax dollars. Our government has already picked a side, unfortunately they picked the wrong side.

[boppers]

24. Well, the other sides weren't exactly all about peace, love, and democracy.

Which "right side" is there??

[jtuck004]

25. The people. n/t

[boppers]

26. Which ones?

These guys?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muslim_Brotherhood

They're the main opposition in Egypt.

[jtuck004]

29. The tens of thousands in the streets will decide.The leaders

will emerge from them.

The alternative is to support a dictator who uses the power of the secret police and American weapons to jail, beat, kill, intimidate and threaten his opposition.

As far as whether the Muslim Brotherhood is really the opposition is questionable. I hear it from those who want a bad guy they can pick on and villify, though I am damn sure that most anyone who doesn't live and work in Egypt doesn't know their ass from a hole in the ground in this scenario.

On the other hand a friend of mine who lives there and has a real life stake in what goes on has a bit different opinion, and when we get back in touch again I will ask about it.

[vaberella]

33. Obama is not taking a side, end of story. So he's not supporting either end.n/t

[jtuck004]

44. 'Course, they have kids going up to CNN reporters with Tear Gas marked U.S.A.

So I suspect people are going to presume he is on the side of the force being used against them.

Reading says they are the second highest in aid after Israel, and the majority of it appears to be spent on the military, with only a few hundred million spent on social programs.

[vaberella]

49. And-or those could have been collected from years before.

We've been dealing with Egypt for years, that's no secret.

[Name removed]

50. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[jtuck004]

65. I think the protester will count it from the time it was shot at them...

It's no secret that they buy weapons, not for offensive military capability, and use them on the civilian population to suppress dissent. With our money.

The United States of America provide an annual military assistance to Egypt, which in 2009 amounted to US$ 1.3 billion (inflation adjusted US$ 1.33 billion in 2011).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egyptian_Armed_Forces

And that's just the military aid. They also get a bit more (in the range of a hundred million or two - for economic aid.

[vaberella]

27. People have no comprehension of diplomacy, end of story.

We get involved when it suits us...but when it's something that can lead to bad blood and war...we should respect ourselves and back away. People on DU don't get that. Sometimes the principled decision doesn't work in real life scenarios and this needs to be respected. You made a great post.

[Pisces]

31. First ask the question if they are the real left? I agree with you completely.

[hulka38]

38. He hopes Mubarak hangs on

as does almost everyone in Washington but he doesn't want to say that publicly because it will sound undemocratic and hypocritical.

[vaberella]

40. You don't know what he wants...n/t

[hulka38]

43. Sure I do.

[impik]

48. They are right to hope so. As terrible as Mubarak is, whoever comes after, will be far worse

You should learn a little bit about the ME.

[hulka38]

53. Far worse for whom?

The Egyptians? Americans? El Baradei would be far better for Egyptians than Mubarak and son. Many Egyptians rightly feel that the U.S. has contributed to their oppression. When the people of Egypt overthrow Mubarak whether it's now or in 15 years, I'd like them to be as pro-American as possible. The more assistance we give to their oppressors and the longer they have to wait for their freedom, the more radical and anti-American they become. That goes for the rest of the ME dictatorships that the U.S. has propped up for decades. The Iranian Revolution is a prime example of the powerful yet predictable anti-American backlash that will occur when we play with people's freedom. It does not make Americans more secure. The President championed freedom in his Cairo speech. Now that the Egyptian people's time has come, he won't back them up. Continuing to back Mubarak is choosing to be on the wrong side of history.

[Hippo_Tron]

71. No guarantee that ElBaradei will emerge on top at the end of this, though

[Teaser]

60. So do you.

maybe you haven't said so publicly. But tons of us know what you've said privately.

[jillan]

42. It is ridiculous. We do not need to get involved in this.

Thank you for this thread. I have been sitting her in disbelief in what I have been reading.

I think it is great that people are taking to the streets and making a statement, but it is not for us to get involved in.

[Fuddnik]

45. Why do some on the center-right continue to construct strawmen?

About things that "Some on the left" might or might not want?

[paulk]

58. +1

[stevenleser]

63. Its obvious that it is not a strawman when you read comments in this thread.

Various posters are advocating we get involved to make sure the "correct" side wins.

[hulka38]

64. No.

We have been involved for decades. Obama just furthered our involvement with the statement he made backing Mubarak after their phone call on Friday.

[stevenleser]

73. I have no idea what "ignored" said in response to this, but my point remains. It is NOT a straw man.

People, mostly those who are Obama critics here, are advocating he take action in the current crisis. Whether or not you agree with that, the top comment at the subthread here is that it is a strawman to suggest that some people are advocating that he take action. This is clearly NOT a straw man.

[Name removed]

46. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[AngryAmish]

52. It is in the interest of the American people to be friendly with the government of Egypt

No matter who wins. Why?

1. Egypt is a large country. It is one of the leaders of the region. It has religous institutions that an awful lot of folks listen to.

2. Suez canal. We want that open and relatively cheap.

3. Other reasons I don't know about.

Mubarak is seen as weak - age mostly. Do we really want another dynasty. It is against American values. So as a government we must either pick a side and make sure it wins or not piss off both sides. Picking a side is seen as easier.

[Hissyspit]

54. Propping up authoritarian regimes is what always ends up bad for us.

Whatever is going on in the background, giving lip service and money and cooperating in torture is what the world public knows about us symbolically, and results in more extremist enemies for us.

[tekisui]

55. We'll never learn.

[barbiegeek]

56. Thank You--American Tourists, Students, Press are there- We must mind their Safety

I for one am glad we finally have a President SMART enough to shut up & not say anything that could endanger their lives while they try to get out.

This is EGYPT (not Libya) for goodness sakes--The pyramids, archeology digs, Suez Canal, Tourist ships--all Americans visiting Ancient Egypt sites

Not to mention all the European's on Vacation--It's a fricking $50 Euro flight to Egypt from Berlin.

I saved for 10 YEARS to visit Europe-10 YEARS- not every American there visiting is Rich.

[alwysdrunk]

57. Because we are a leader in the International Community

One of the most important leaders, maybe the most important. This situation and it's outcome will have effects reaching much further than the borders of Egypt. Add to that our long held principals of supporting and encouraging liberal democratic government and free markets, we are expected, rightly, to have something to say about this an any similar significant events.

[Name removed]

59. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

61. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[jeanpalmer]

62. It's time for Obama to take a stand for freedom

tell the dictator to GTF out of Egypt. Obama is pussyfooting around.

[BklnDem75]

66. Or what?

Are you pro-war now?

[jeanpalmer]

75. People like you are making things too difficult

You're choosing to ignore the obvious. We have an opportunity to help the Egyptian people get rid of a despot, and support democracy. Instead, you throw up false roadblocks? Why?

[ncteechur]

70. It's easy to say that from the comfort of your living room.

[stevenleser]

72. Easy and CRAZY! n/t

[jeanpalmer]

74. He sends drones into Pakistan and Yemen every day

He could send one over Mubarak. It's not a tough decision.

[stevenleser]

76. So that is a good and progressive thing now? n/t

[FrenchieCat]

78. Here's something to read on that subject....

Cairo, Egypt - Then and Now
http://www.democratsforprogress.com/2011/01/30/cairo-egypt-then-and-now/