Egypt-Inspired Protests Spread to Libya

[Jimbuna]

...and so it continues

Kings, Dictators, Queens, Presidents, whether they be Sunni or Shia those leaders who have associations with infidels such as you and I are corrupt and must be dealt with.

Yet they are also protesting against theocracies and anti western governments which makes your point pointless.

Do you know what a corrupt government is to a Muslim?

what a muslim thinks is irrelevant, you can put up a quote from a christian and it would be equally as meaningless.

Well Tribesman, the Sahib Al-Zaman is established doctrine for both Sunni and Shi’a Muslims.

So what?
How can they make this global caliphate you are so worried about when they spend their time fighting each other like they always have?

[Rockstar]

Originally Posted by Tribesman

Yet they are also protesting against theocracies and anti western governments which makes your point pointless.


what a muslim thinks is irrelevant, you can put up a quote from a christian and it would be equally as meaningless.

You have got to be kidding me, what a muslim thinks is irrelevant? Yousuf Al-Qaradhawi is somebody you will be hearing much more of in the coming days, count on it. He was someone invited by the Egyptian Army after being banned by Mubarak for over 30 years. This is what those beloved freedom fighters brought in the name of democracy and self-determination.

http://www.memri.org/report/en/0/0/0/0/0/0/5020.htm

So what? How can they make this global caliphate you are so worried about when they spend their time fighting each other like they always have?

Not only is this a political goal but it is also a very religious one every muslim looks forward too. Nations are divided all the time look at the U.S. yet it functions, barely.

[Skybird]

From the chain of unrests, there is something more general to be learned, about Obama. I knew already that he had no interest in Europe, but recent events in the Arab world show that he indeed lacks any vision and comprehensive conception of foreign politics in general. This lack of concept explains why he is so absurdly zig-zagging back and forth between demanding democracy and being unable to come up with conceptual answers to the changes in the power and faction balance this change brings, and why he fails in trying the split between democracy and tyrannic monarchies in the Arab world.

As a German news outlet marked today, things will become really interesting when the unrest spreads to Bahrain - home and headquarter of the 5th fleet patrolling the Red Sea and the Persian Gulf. Iran would love to see this American foothold disappear.

I slowly but surely must conclude that while Obama's foreign policy is different to that of GWB, it nevertheless shows the same level of incompetence, lacking understanding and stupidity. It already became suspicious when he started to appease the Islamic world, hailed the indeed totalitarianism of Islam as freedom and humanism, and next when he had that speech in Cairo. I immediately wondered if he really had thought it to the bitter end what he said there.

The American Middle East policy falls apart currently, and the long-sought balancing in its structure to win strategic stablity, is in pieces. Well-intended words cannot compensate for lacking sense of realism and Realpolitik. Some of the biggest disasters in man's history were caused by good intentions. It is here when Obama's undeniable brilliant rethoric talent turns out for the worst results.

Bush's problem was lobbyistic connections that pulled the strings he hang on, and lacking intellect. He simply is a stupid man. Obama's problem is not a lack of intelligence and intellect, but a too narrow horizon.

[DarkFish]

I tend to agree with you there Sky. I didn't see Bush's foreign policy as anything good, but Obama isn't much better. IMO he just jumps back and forth between all possible policies, without taking any firm standpoint. One moment he tried to appease the opposition in Egypt, while another time he firmly backed Mubarak. Generally speaking I like Obama better than Bush, but Bush at least usually took firm stances on foreign politics. Not this weak slippery unclear Obama talk

[Takeda Shingen]

Originally Posted by Skybird

From the chain of unrests, there is something more general to be learned, about Obama. I knew already that he had no interest in Europe, but recent events in the Arab world show that he indeed lacks any vision and comprehensive conception of foreign politics in general. This lack of concept explains why he is so absurdly zig-zagging back and forth between demanding democracy and being unable to come up with conceptual answers to the changes in the power and faction balance this change brings, and why he fails in trying the split between democracy and tyrannic monarchies in the Arab world.

As a German news outlet marked today, things will become really interesting when the unrest spreads to Bahrain - home and headquarter of the 5th fleet patrolling the Red Sea and the Persian Gulf. Iran would love to see this American foothold disappear.

I slowly but surely must conclude that while Obama's foreign policy is different to that of GWB, it nevertheless shows the same level of incompetence, lacking understanding and stupidity. It already became suspicious when he started to appease the Islamic world, hailed the indeed totalitarianism of Islam as freedom and humanism, and next when he had that speech in Cairo. I immediately wondered if he really had thought it to the bitter end what he said there.

The American Middle East policy falls apart currently, and the long-sought balancing in its structure to win strategic stablity, is in pieces. Well-intended words cannot compensate for lacking sense of realism and Realpolitik. Some of the biggest disasters in man's history were caused by good intentions. It is here when Obama's undeniable brilliant rethoric talent turns out for the worst results.

Bush's problem was lobbyistic connections that pulled the strings he hang on, and lacking intellect. He simply is a stupid man. Obama's problem is not a lack of intelligence and intellect, but a too narrow horizon.

I can't agree that Obama's policy is any different than Bush's. We have not changed our direction in the Middle East, nor anywhere else abroad. We do have words; lots of words, and some of them very nice. Still, those words have not changed out actions. If we are seeing the Middle East policy falling apart, it is because it was destined to do so. Our continued action in the Middle East is only reaping disaster because it has been sowed for 30 years. It is only by chance that it happens under Obama; it could have easily happened under Bush 43 or whoever the 45th US president will be. In directly addressing the Obama administration's policy, it may as well been a third term of the Bush administration, despite the rhetoric of change.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Takeda Shingen

I can't agree that Obama's policy is any different than Bush's. We have not changed our direction in the Middle East, nor anywhere else abroad. We do have words; lots of words, and some of them very nice. Still, those words have not changed out actions. If we are seeing the Middle East policy falling apart, it is because it was destined to do so. Our continued action in the Middle East is only reaping disaster because it has been sowed for 30 years. It is only by chance that it happens under Obama; it could have easily happened under Bush 43 or whoever the 45th US president will be. In directly addressing the Obama administration's policy, it may as well been a third term of the Bush administration, despite the rhetoric of change.

We do not really differ on the basic fundamentals of the situation, I think. Of course the US policy for the ME is the construction of the past 3 decades, but Obama has helped in its falling apart by his different signals and partly contradictory messages he sent out. His policy also differs from that of Bush in that he reached out to "them", no matter on what grounds and motives, and did so to a wider degree, than Bush. His Cairo speech set up a trap that added to "their"motivation and now sees Obama himself being trapped inside. But yes, you are right that Obama is not responsible for the total 30 years of US ME policy. Nevertheless he changed the style of it, the tone, compared to Bush, and while Bush maybe also would have seen a scene of revolts sooner or later, both men still are different in the paths they choosed to get to that point.