We still have allies in Egypt, mostly in the military mind you (thanks in large part to many of the Egyptian Generals having working with the US in the past and several billion in military aid helps as well). And when Obama finally said that Mubarak had to go, low and behold he was gone.
No we don't. When el Sisi decided he was going to retire to run for President, he didn't call us to get our agreement, he flew to Russia to get Putin's blessing. Egypt's military is also trying to take seriously an ISIL threat in Libya by partnering with General Haftar, who has had the nerve to kill both ISIL and local AQ affiliates. Our response has been to try to sanction Haftar. We are currently not enemies with the Egypitan military, but we are not allies. When I say we managed to convince every side in Egypt that we opposed them, I meant every side.
In the beginning that was true. But once the violence became more apparent, he did condemn it. Short of invading the country, what more did you want
Fact Check: Was Obama 'silent' on Iran 2009 protests? - CNN.com
:doh your source is confirming what I said. Obama's response wasn't to condemn the government or give support to the protestors, it was to explicitly refuse to do the latter and , it was to say gosh we are appalled at the violence.... and then we continued trying to negotiate with them. We gave precisely zero ****s about freedom in Iran.
I never said he did a great job or trying to remove him, only that he did want him gone.
Sure, and I'd like to have a resting six pack and a doctorate in philosophy. I'm just not
doing anything about it.
Coincidentally, the one country on this list where we haven't been involved with much. Interesting don't you think?
:shrug: Tunisia had the most western of the populaces, and yes, it turned out well. Take a look at the other countries where we chose to exercise "strategic restraint" or "lead from behind". How's it going in the
rest of the region?
Let me sum all this up, and feel free to tell me where I'm wrong, but you are suggesting that we follow the Iraq Plan as it was a success and invade what? Ten countries to establish secular governments in each one?
Nope. Iraq was
a success, and a necessary one, that we basically then did our best to throw away (and the jury is still out on that one) because the President wanted an applause line for the 2012 reelection campaign. That doesn't make it a cookie cutter solution - interestingly, if you treat cuts before they become infected, you very rarely have to amputate the limb and replace it with a mechanical.
And then you want us to keep a force of 20,000 (last I checked that was the proposed SOFA) in each of those countries...
:lol: hah. I wish. The Administration came in at the last minute and undercut the Iraqi's by putting in a
cap at 5,000. The White House basically sabatoged its own negotiations.
Look I'm not saying that installing dictators in power will last forever, but right not it's the best option we've got.
No it's not. Sacrificing the future to have an easier life today is not the best option we've got. Not with regards to debt, and not with regards to the false "security" and "stability" that dictators provide. Abusive dictatorships are what make these movements popular. All installing dictators in power will do is ensure that our children and their children will have to deal with this same problem because we weren't willing to deal with it now.
Hell, you even pointed out that once the Military took over in Egypt, they're now apart of war effort against ISIS. I doubt we could of counted on such help from the MB.
No, we couldn't have. But since the military took over Egypt and started an effort against the Muslim Brotherhod, ISIL has taken over large sections of the Sinai, and the Muslim Brotherhood has announced that they will overturn decades of precedent and go back to violent Jihad. So the problem persisted, and metastasized.
Whereas, when the MB was attempting to govern in a representative structure... you know what happened?
They became dramatically less popular.
