Is this what you want from a leader?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:His description seems pretty spot on and diplomatic to me.

Our embassy in Libya was attacked. Our ambassador and other citizens were murdered. Now, our embassies in Egypt, Yemen, and elsewhere have been attacked. It might be because of an offensive video. And Obama is being diplomatic. Am I supposed to think that's a good thing?

Don't you know? Diplomacy with nations where Americans have been violently killed is a good thing. However, diplomacy with the only Middle Eastern nation who has not attacked an American embassy, ambassador, or citizen is a bad thing.

Jonathan Pollard was a huge Israeli spy, serving a life sentence. Netanyahu visited him in prison years after his conviction. Hmm, what's THAT about.

[Anonymous]

saying mittens is like saying Kenyan

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'm the OP. I don't have a view if Egypt should or should not be our ally. I do think our president should be able to say plainly which is the case. Have we not learned from Jimmy Carter that diplomacy does not work in the middle east?
I hear all the time what a great orator Obama is, how smart he is. He can't even explain something as simple as "Egypt is not our ally" in plain language. Romney said what he meant about the Middle East situation, and people think that's horrible.

Mushy language is good. Speaking plainly is not being diplomatic. I get it now.

So what is your alternative, smarty pants? Constant war in the Middle East? That's gone really well for us over the past decade, hasn't it? Of course, I am sure you are all for "fiscal responsibility" meaning tax cuts for the rich while we continue to spend record amounts on defense, right?

The intellectual inconsistency of the right-wing's positions in this country is simply astounding to me.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:saying mittens is like saying Kenyan

Not. Even.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

So what is your alternative, smarty pants? Constant war in the Middle East? That's gone really well for us over the past decade, hasn't it?

It doesn't have to have anything to do with us. We leave there and we let them do what they do. End of story. They don't get our aid, we drill for our own oil, we make do in the meantime for other transportation issues. Done.

[Anonymous]

Problem with the "leave them alone" strategy is the real nutcases will find some grievance, real or imagined, to hate us over. And then either:

1) weak central governments have vast areas in which the nutcases can plan and attack with impunity
2) strongmen will fester resentment, leading dissidents from those countries to go to countries of type (1).

Now this may not happen, but what the Hell do we do when the nutcases do attack us, since foreign intervention and war are bad bad bad? (I bet most of the self-proclaimed isolationists here all had Boehners for the Iraq War.)

The way Obama's doing things is cheaper and seems to be working a Hell of a lot better (unless you want to paint Iraq 2004-07 as a success story) than the way Bush II was doing things.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
For starters, he could have taken a day off from campaigning in Vegas. He could have met with the president of one of the only Middle Eastern countries that hasn't attacked one of our embassies or killed Americans.

Assuming you are talking about Netanyahu, you have an accuracy rate that would make Mittens blush. Netanyahu is the Prime Minister, not President. He is not in the US, so Obama could not have met with him, and Israel has killed Americans. Have you heard of Rachel Courie ore the USS Liberty?

So, actually, you don't have a practical suggestion for what Obama should have done.

How is buttressing Israel going to lessen the chances of Islamic nutcases attacking our citizens and territory?

[Anonymous]

Agree with the original poster. Pray Mitt wins

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
For starters, he could have taken a day off from campaigning in Vegas. He could have met with the president of one of the only Middle Eastern countries that hasn't attacked one of our embassies or killed Americans.

Assuming you are talking about Netanyahu, you have an accuracy rate that would make Mittens blush. Netanyahu is the Prime Minister, not President. He is not in the US, so Obama could not have met with him, and Israel has killed Americans. Have you heard of Rachel Courie or the USS Liberty?

So, actually, you don't have a practical suggestion for what Obama should have done.

How is buttressing Israel going to lessen the chances of Islamic nutcases attacking our citizens and territory?

Huh? What conversation are you having? But, in answer to your question, I don't think it does. In fact, if anything, it probably has the opposite effect.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
For starters, he could have taken a day off from campaigning in Vegas. He could have met with the president of one of the only Middle Eastern countries that hasn't attacked one of our embassies or killed Americans.

Assuming you are talking about Netanyahu, you have an accuracy rate that would make Mittens blush. Netanyahu is the Prime Minister, not President. He is not in the US, so Obama could not have met with him, and Israel has killed Americans. Have you heard of Rachel Courie or the USS Liberty?

So, actually, you don't have a practical suggestion for what Obama should have done.

How is buttressing Israel going to lessen the chances of Islamic nutcases attacking our citizens and territory?

Huh? What conversation are you having? But, in answer to your question, I don't think it does. In fact, if anything, it probably has the opposite effect.

I was replying to the post you were replying to, sorry. And yes, I agree, the PPs who want us to get closer to Israel have to acknowledge we pay a price for that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:The real world is complex and nuanced. The other day Mittens made a very clear statement about Russia and nearly set off a diplomatic crisis.

His name is Mitt. I'm this was just an error on your part. Surely a moderator would wish to appear as one of the more mature folks in the group, instead of one of the less mature ones.

Actually, his name is Willard. Surely a big supporter such as yourself would be aware of that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:The real world is complex and nuanced. The other day Mittens made a very clear statement about Russia and nearly set off a diplomatic crisis.

His name is Mitt. I'm this was just an error on your part. Surely a moderator would wish to appear as one of the more mature folks in the group, instead of one of the less mature ones.

Actually, his name is Willard. Surely a big supporter such as yourself would be aware of that.

You say "mittens" I'll start saying "hussein"

Or,you all can continue to drive away conservatives and have fun rooting on each other's witticisms.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:The real world is complex and nuanced. The other day Mittens made a very clear statement about Russia and nearly set off a diplomatic crisis.

His name is Mitt. I'm this was just an error on your part. Surely a moderator would wish to appear as one of the more mature folks in the group, instead of one of the less mature ones.

Is there a Republican in the room with a sense of humor? Anyone?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:The real world is complex and nuanced. The other day Mittens made a very clear statement about Russia and nearly set off a diplomatic crisis.

His name is Mitt. I'm this was just an error on your part. Surely a moderator would wish to appear as one of the more mature folks in the group, instead of one of the less mature ones.

Is there a Republican in the room with a sense of humor? Anyone?

Bueller? Bueller?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:My family is Egyptian and I agree with Obama. Egypt's not an ally. It's not an enemy. Nobody is sure which direction the relationship will head. Why put a name to it if there is none?

I have friends who are Egyptian so I am familiar with what is going on. It is funny, actually it's very sad how so many Americans like the OP are so incredibly ignorant and just talk out their ass. Obama's phone call scared the crap out of Morsey and forced him to make a statement and protect the embassy, which was big deal. Albeit, Morsey should have done it on his own. Morsey is very new and inexperienced and learned soon enough who he is dealing with. They just had a bunch of American companies in Egypt for business development. Morsey doesn't want to prevent that from happening. Egypt is strategic but they need us just as much. I think the Egyptian military which is backed by the U.S. wanted Morsey to look bad and they did not protect the embassy for that reason. It is a lot more complicated than the OP or Mittens realize, which is why Romney looks stupid and went back to talking about the economy. Thus, it has not yet been determined whether they are an ally or enemy.

And the statement put out by the Egyptian embassy was meant to contain and yes placate in an attempt to prevent further unrest. That has nothing to do with foreign policy. When a gun is pointed to your head you say what you have to. The instability in the middle east can not be controlled by the U.S. that is ridiculous! If anything, this started with Bush's Bullshit Iraq war, which accomplished nothing. Personally, I don't believe every nation is capable of having a democracy. But, that is another topic.