Toldya...trade in one bad guy for another...and it was gonna be so great! Ha!

[Xavier_Onassis]

It was pretty clear that Qaddaffi strafing citizens who were demonstrating against him were not in anyone's best interests. Morsi was elected by fellow Egyptians after decades of Mubarak, who never won a fair election in his life.

Which of our enemies were supporting Morsi, anyway?

Iran, China and Russia were uninvolved or involved very little in Egypt's succession,so it is bogus to say that we should try to support Mubarak, which seems to be what you wanted.

Again,President Obama did EXACTLY the right thing in this case. Supporting Mubarak was the alternative,and would have failed and made the US look both dictatorial and incompetent.

This is about the PROCESS of Egyptians choosing their own leaders, not about,as you seem to think, retaining obsolete toadies.

[Christians4LessGvt]

It was pretty clear that Qaddaffi strafing citizens who were demonstrating against him were not in anyone's best interests.

Saddam was using WMD's against his own people,
were you shouting for us to remove him at that point?
Hell no you weren't, because you have selective outrage.

It's ok  to choose who does not run Libya, but it's a no-no in other places like Syria?
Or do you support Obama removing Assad basically "strafing citizens"?

Which of our enemies were supporting Morsi, anyway?

It remains to be seen....like I've said it's always "rah rah" in the beginning,
then in many cases gets progressively worse.

Iran, China and Russia were uninvolved or involved very little in Egypt's succession

Where did I say they were? Reading things that are not there again?
My point broadened the discussion about influencing who rules other countries.
And the US certianly needs to play a role.
But you have selective outrage on when we do and when we dont.

Again,President Obama did EXACTLY the right thing in this case.

That remains to be seen....just like in 1979 it was yea yea yea for the Mullahs
The Mullahs have proven to be a disaster and are obviously worse than the Shah.
The Shah was bad....the Mullahs are bad.
But there are big differences....The Shah did not export revolution and want to
wipe Israel off the map and point nuclear missles at lots of people.

Supporting Mubarak was the alternative,and would have failed and made the US look both dictatorial and incompetent.

Mubarak was hardly the only alternative.

This is about the PROCESS of Egyptians choosing their own leaders,
not about,as you seem to think, retaining obsolete toadies.

Ha Ha....and the Mullahs turned out to be quite the toadies!
Thats the problem....most of the time worse toads replace the former toads.
We'll see how the Islamist Muslim Brotherhood turnout....
I doubt it will be good.....that failed culture/philosophy has hardly shown brightly anywhere.

[Plane]

  The US can do things that support or slow the processes of Egyptian politics , the US can criticise or praise.

But the will of the Egyptian people outranks other influences , and that is as it should be.

I am happy to see the people of Cairo demonstrating to defend democracy , I hope they get some democracy.

[Xavier_Onassis]

Saddam was using WMD's against his own people,
were you shouting for us to remove him at that point?
Hell no you weren't, because you have selective outrage.
===============================================
When Saddam was gassing Kurds, he was Rumsfeld's pal. No one in the US supported invading Iraq and deposing him. That happened in the1980's. The First Iraq War only sought to remove the Iraqi troops from Kuwait. Olebush did not try to remove Saddam then, either.

Only after 9-11,in which not a single Iraqi was involved, did the US decide that it was worth American lives to depose Saddam.

It is one thing to be opposed to a dictator, and quite another to want to send US troops overseas to fight a war to depose that dictator. If all the US had to do was snap its fingers and *poof!* cause Saddam to vanish,I was fine with that. We perhaps should do the same thing to Kim Jung Un  as well, if it were possible.

I am opposed to Morsi taking on additional powers, but I hardly advocate sending troops to depose him,so we can impose a (chuckle) pro-Zionist ruler or whatever in Egypt.

Morsi can get away with this for as long as the Egyptian Army will support him, just like Mubarak. Once the new constitution is in place, he may or may not be want to and be able to keep his powers. This will clearly depend on the Army, how much the people demonstrating are willing to protest, and how willing the Army is to allow them to demonstrate. US Aid no doubt is one of several things that will have an impact here as well.

Morsi is better that Mubarak, because Mubarak could not quell the demonstrators without the Army's support,and he did not have the Army's support. Morsi was democratically elected, and he is certainly not perfect, but he is better than chaos.

You think that you are some kind of expert on Egypt, but you do not know diddly about it. I make no claims to be an expert, and therefore think that Egypt should sort out its own way by itself. President Obama did all he could to promote democracy.The US cannot send troops to impose a government you like on Egypt. That is not an option. 
.

[Plane]

Only after 9-11,in which not a single Iraqi was involved, did the US decide that it was worth American lives to depose Saddam.

I think this an error ,didn't the 41st president invade Iraq?
Didn't the 42nd president bomb Iriqui military targets an hundred times?

[Xavier_Onassis]

Did 41 or 42 express a desire to invade Iraq with the express purpose of deposing Saddam?

No, neither did this.

Only Juniorbush

[Plane]

Did 41 or 42 express a desire to invade Iraq with the express purpose of deposing Saddam?

No, neither did this.

Only Juniorbush

Doesn't that make 43 the smarter of the three?

George Bush, President 41 invaded Iraq after rescuing Kuwait, hoping to avoid ownership of Iraq , he broke off attack and encouraged Iraqui uprising.
Unfortunately , this allowed Saddam to reconsolidate power and kill off his enemys , including most of the people who might have showered our troops with flowers .

Bill Clinton President 42 was content to smash Iriqui anti-aircraft guns , about one a week, and do nothing that really rescued the Iriqui people at all. Bill Clinton's time in power was hundreds of missed oppurtunitys , and in the case of Iraq , and unlanced boil allowed to fester.

[Christians4LessGvt]

You think that you are some kind of expert on Egypt,

Once again just making stuff up out of thin air!
Fantasy land......

The US cannot send troops to impose a government you like on Egypt. That is not an option. 

No one on this website EVER advocated sending US Troops to Egypt.
But here you are once again implying something that is not reality.
Just sheer total fantasy land.

[Christians4LessGvt]

Is Egypt about to become the new Iran?

By Con Coughlin

November 28th, 2012

It is not only the anti-government protesters in Egypt's Tahrir Square who should be concerned about President Mohammed Morsi's audacious power grab. Mr Morsi's claim at the weekend that "God's will and elections made me the captain of this ship" has echoes of Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini's claim during the 1979 Iranian revolution that his mission to overthrow the Shah enjoyed divine guidance.

Since his announcement that he was granting himself sweeping new powers, Mr Morsi has been trying to reassure sceptical Egyptian voters that he has no ambition to become Egypt's new Pharaoh. But you only have to look at the violent scenes that have once again erupted in Tahrir Square to see that the majority of Egyptians remain unconvinced.

When Egyptian demonstrators first occupied Tahrir Square last year to call for the overthrow of Mr Morsi's predecessor, President Hosni Mubarak, they were calling for a secular, democratic system of government that would represent the interests of all Egyptians, and not just the corrupt clique of presidential supporters. Similar sentiments were expressed by Iranian demonstrators during the build-up to the Shah's overthrow in February 1979 as they sought to remove a similarly corrupt regime.

But as we now know to our cost, the worthy aspirations of the Iranian masses were hijacked by Khomeini's hardline Islamist agenda, and within months of the Shah's overthrow Iran had been transformed into an Islamic republic.

Mr Morsi says he has no desire to become a dictator, but his announcement that, henceforth, all presidential decrees will be immune from legal challenge does not bode well for Egypt's transition from military dictatorship to democracy.

I am sure I am not the only one wondering whether Mr Morsi is about to become the new Ayatollah Khomeini.

Certainly, unless Mr Morsi backs down, all those who sacrificed their lives in the cause of the Egyptian revolution will have died in vain.

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/concoughlin/100191795/is-egypt-about-to-become-the-new-iran/

[sirs]

You think that you are some kind of expert on Egypt,

Once again just making stuff up out of thin air!
Fantasy land......

The US cannot send troops to impose a government you like on Egypt. That is not an option. 

No one on this website EVER advocated sending US Troops to Egypt.
But here you are once again implying something that is not reality.
Just sheer total fantasy land.

When unable to further defend positions that are largely indefensible, or debunk points with the support of facts, it appears Xo's approach is to then argue points never made.  Can't count how many times he'd done it with responses to me, although I also can't count how many times he's responded on how boring and *insert any derogatory term here* I supposedly am, yet still wants to respond.   

[Xavier_Onassis]

I also can't count how many times he's responded on how boring and *insert any derogatory term here*
========================
I haven't noticed that you are npot so good with math,anyway.


 I supposedly am, yet still wants to respond.   

================================
And yet, you never cease to respond. You always have something to say, usually some snide asshole remark in which you attempt to change the topic to one that suits you better

The alternatives to Morsi being ELECTED were (1) keeping Mubarak in power.This was almost as unlikely as keeping the Shah in power, which was impossible, due to the Shah's being near death."Christians" was apparently all for that as well,and (2) rioting and chaos.

Now that Morsi has displeased "Christians" and apparently sirs as well, he is to be expunged by some nonspecified means.

I suggest that the Egyptians be permitted to run their own country, and that the judgment of Morsi's ability be postponed until the new constitution is implemented .

I hardly think that it can be assumed that the judges appointed by Mubarak can be assumed to be the last word on justice. The people of Egypt will demonstrate as well, and that will clearly have an impact as well.

 

[Christians4LessGvt]

Morsi has displeased "Christians" and apparently sirs as well,

More fantasy land.....more distraction BS
It's not me or SIRS....it's millions of Egyptians displeased with Morsi.
At least 200,000 people protested in Cairo's Tahrir square earlier this week against Morsi.
You pretend the Mubarak regime was soooooo unpopular,
but Morsi narrowly won a June vote against Mubarak's last prime minister.
A large secular & liberal opposition preferred Mubarak's prime minister over the Islamists.

[sirs]

I also can't count how many times he's responded on how boring and *insert any derogatory term here*

========================
I haven't noticed that you are npot so good with math,anyway.

Huh??   

I supposedly am, yet still wants to respond.   
================================
And yet, you never cease to respond.

LOL.......at least I make the effort to respond with substance vs producing the latest and greatest in leftist talking points

You always have something to say, usually some snide asshole remark in which you attempt to change the topic to one that suits you better

Only when recipricating, and rarely in trying to change the subject.  That'd be your specialty, in argueing points never made

[Xavier_Onassis]

I do not submit myself to the points YOU expect me to make, sirs.

I am free to make any point I damn well choose.

You are simply snide.

Mubarak was lots more unpopular than Morsi, but he was also correctly viewed as a guy who could order the cops to beat you up more than Morsi. So Morsi might have the same number of protesters, or even more, and still be less unpopular.

I am all for the Egyptians deciding who runs Egypt, as opposed to "Christians" and you, for example.

[sirs]

I do not submit myself to the points YOU expect me to make, sirs.

I am free to make any point I damn well choose.

And even if they're completely irrelevent......lol.....who claimed you couldn't??