greg334
Veteran Expediter
What should they get informed about?
Egypt and Barry
- Thread starter skyraider
- Start date
What should they get informed about?
Yeah, get informed about what?
When Kennedy faced the Cuban Missile Crisis he stood before the White House Press Corp to answer the barrage of questions that came at him; and appropriately so. Kennedy faced some of the biggest problems and challenges this nation has ever known, and he never let anyone "handle him" when it came to facing the press. Then there is Johnson and the Tet offensive, or any of the other major events during his administration. What about Ronald Reagan and all the many issues and crisis of that time? Leadership is unveiled in times of trouble.
My point about this Egyptian crisis, which is having great, negative economic impact on oil prices, and causing soaring food costs.Now is not the time for our President to be kept from the press. Is he not trusted with his own words and judgment about what to say or not to say in a press conference. Obama has not even acknowledged in any detail how this crisis is affecting middle class America. Understanding and reassurance is should always be communicated to our nation in times of upheaval.
We cannot have a President-in-training. Americans have the right to hear an exchange between the free press and their leader in times of crisis and conflict, especially when it directly affects our lives. Do we remember these foibles, and elect someone who can better handle the heat in the kitchen when something hot is cooking in the world?
Just my thoughts.
My point about this Egyptian crisis, which is having great, negative economic impact on oil prices, and causing soaring food costs.Now is not the time for our President to be kept from the press. Is he not trusted with his own words and judgment about what to say or not to say in a press conference. Obama has not even acknowledged in any detail how this crisis is affecting middle class America. Understanding and reassurance is should always be communicated to our nation in times of upheaval.
We cannot have a President-in-training. Americans have the right to hear an exchange between the free press and their leader in times of crisis and conflict, especially when it directly affects our lives. Do we remember these foibles, and elect someone who can better handle the heat in the kitchen when something hot is cooking in the world?
Just my thoughts.
Hey golf,,u can get off topic anytime u want too,,,its done all the time in here,,,,glad ur getting help on the leg,,,thank u for ur service to the USA
golfournut
Veteran Expediter
Thank you.
greg334
Veteran Expediter
What crisis?
We will see the change in the government but as one oil analysis pointed out this morning that oil prices are driven by emotion, nothing else and even if it was a peaceful transition, they would have still spiked anyway because people see money being made on futures.
The only real crisis is our lack of ability to deal with things as an observer, wanting to influence the outcome.
We will see the change in the government but as one oil analysis pointed out this morning that oil prices are driven by emotion, nothing else and even if it was a peaceful transition, they would have still spiked anyway because people see money being made on futures.
The only real crisis is our lack of ability to deal with things as an observer, wanting to influence the outcome.
My point is that we should be seeing the President answering questions from the press, not his lackies. Unless, his lackies don't want him to appear that he doesn't know what is going on.
witness23
Veteran Expediter
When you say "an extremist revolt" what exaclty do you mean by that? What makes you believe they are extremists? Out of curisosity, are you a supporter of Mubarack or the citizens of Egypt?
Do you think they are protesting for social, democratic and economic reform? Or do you think they are protesting the American support of the Egyptian government, and looking for a more religious leader(such as the Muslim Brotherhood) to take Mubarack's place?
Last edited:
greg334
Veteran Expediter
Well he doesn't know, so lying and making it look like he knows does little for any meaningful change he can influence. The CMC and Kennedy was a different time with a different set of rules and a better press. I don't think that it would matter much if Obama could answer questions form the press, his influence and actual ability to shape any change is minor and maybe more problematic for every one. The problem is and has been his involvement as the president who needs to have a press conference with every event. It actually detracts from his credibility and his ability to lead - but this is what a rock star president has to do I guess.
IT seems that because we don't have proper intelligence gathering on the ground there and overly dependent on 'the press', he can't make more of an informed comment than he can about the winner of the super bowl in 2012.
We shall see. I don't believe that dogs can fly either. I don't like Mubarack either. I don't however believe for ONE SECOND that this is going to lead to ANY form of "self-determination". Egypt has no history of that or experience with it. They are going to end up trading on task master for another. Only time will tell which one was worse.
witness23
Veteran Expediter
How about this.....If you were President, and the situation in Egypt was happening on your watch, and you were required to send a message to the people of Egypt, that you either supported the current President(Mubarack), or the protesters in the streets; which would you choose?
I would not want to support either in this case. I believe it is a total lose lose. Mubarack is not a good person or leader. Those who I believe are behind this, all over the region, are not any better. I think I would be building up our military, we are going to need them.
I would try, mainly behind the scenes, to persuade the military there to take control for about a year. Dismantle the current police structure. Allow some time for things to cool down. Then look a some sort of elections. The idea that Egypt could move form NO history of self rule in their entire several thousand year history to total self rule in a few months is absurd.
I would tell the people of Egypt, for what little good it would do, that we will support a government that is put in by a free and popular vote.( Not that it could ever happen.)
If Mubarack just up and leaves there is going to be a power void. That void will most likely be filled by some group that is no different from Mubarack, just from the opposite side of the coin.
witness23
Veteran Expediter
Okay.....going back to what you previously said:
If you were President and this crisis was happening on your watch and you had to come out and give support to either President Mubarack or the protesters, which would you put your support behind?
Why does Obama have to say anything..other then..."we are watching the situation closely"
We should not influence or even suggest anything...the right of a sovereign country to self determination...
greg334
Veteran Expediter
The thing is you are all assuming a lot of stuff based on your perspective here in the states.
There are very valid reasons why Egypt's government is structured in what we call oppressive and what we consider a police state is not what it is all about. There are groups within the country that have been outlawed (Muslim Brotherhood is one) for very good reasons, as did Germany outlaw the National Socialist. These groups are the real instigators of much of this, it doesn't seem to be a peaceful protest or a need to voice their opinion but rather an overthrow of several governments along the same time line for the same reasons.
The key to all of this is Israel, this is what the issue comes down to - read and learn.
For the record, the president should shut up and not grandstand. He is falling on the side of the extremist when he opens his mouth and his latest stunt bringing up Mubarak's legacy indicates the arrogances our president has and the immaturity he posses - making us look like idiots.
Just like his point that attacks on reporters are "unacceptable", he has not real sway into this and can take no recourse for the people who view reporters as enemies, even arab reporters.
There are very valid reasons why Egypt's government is structured in what we call oppressive and what we consider a police state is not what it is all about. There are groups within the country that have been outlawed (Muslim Brotherhood is one) for very good reasons, as did Germany outlaw the National Socialist. These groups are the real instigators of much of this, it doesn't seem to be a peaceful protest or a need to voice their opinion but rather an overthrow of several governments along the same time line for the same reasons.
The key to all of this is Israel, this is what the issue comes down to - read and learn.
For the record, the president should shut up and not grandstand. He is falling on the side of the extremist when he opens his mouth and his latest stunt bringing up Mubarak's legacy indicates the arrogances our president has and the immaturity he posses - making us look like idiots.
Just like his point that attacks on reporters are "unacceptable", he has not real sway into this and can take no recourse for the people who view reporters as enemies, even arab reporters.
Lol! Why start now?
chefdennis
Veteran Expediter
We have chosen sides ....we trained the extremeist leaders here in our country and are funding them...while we continue to fund Mubarak
witness23
Veteran Expediter
There are a lot of things that could be said or done, one of them is doing nothing as you suggested. I am only asking layout what he would do because of his comment:
If he were President, and he had to show support for either President Mubarack or the protesters, whom would he come out and back. He apparently believes the President is backing an extremist revolt of the people, I am only asking who he would be in support of?
I am under the impression that Sadat was killed by a faction of the "Muslim Brotherhood". They objected to his peace treaty with Israel. So the killed him.
The problem we have in Egypt is very much the same as the situation with the Shah of Iran when the hapless Jimmy Carter was POTUS. An arrogant, naive US leader who knew little about domestic issues and nothing about foreign policy couldn't understand the consequences of allowing an ally of the us to be overthrown and replaced by a theocratic despot and enemy of anyone who wasn't a radical muslim. History could very easily repeat itself if Mubarak is forced to depart too quickly and leave a power void in Egypt. If this happens and so-called "free and fair elections" are set up during a brief transition period, the winner will be the group with the best organization - and that will be the Muslim Brotherhood, who has been around since the 1920s.
This course of events would be an absolute disaster for the Western World, but would also guarantee Obama's defeat in 2012. Hopefully the Egyptian problem will have a better result; by the time Nov of 2012 gets here the majority of the American public will be even sicker of Obama than it was of Jimmy Carter in 1980, and we won't need a mideast crisis to insure his defeat.
This course of events would be an absolute disaster for the Western World, but would also guarantee Obama's defeat in 2012. Hopefully the Egyptian problem will have a better result; by the time Nov of 2012 gets here the majority of the American public will be even sicker of Obama than it was of Jimmy Carter in 1980, and we won't need a mideast crisis to insure his defeat.