Posted on 02/11/2011 8:51:00 AM PST by pissant
On whether the United States should have been giving foreign aid to President Mubarak: “Over 30 years of standing by Mubarak’s side and he essentially standing with America on a lot of our interests it makes sense that we have a reciprocal relationship but no it is not moral or ethical. We are watching Mubarak and realizing the billions of dollars that have been spent, he’s become rich, a lot of the dictatorship has personally benefited. So where do those funds end up? We need to pull back on those countries where the money isn't doing any good."
(Excerpt) Read more at thepage.time.com ...
“...Our dollars bought stability for the Suez Canal. A military NOT inclined to attack Israel. A military that kept the muslim brotherhood in check...”
Where is the stability? Coptic Christians have suffered terrible outrages in Egypt especially during the last five years. Koran wavers have been growing more virulent for a generation.
As for a military not inclined to attack Israel...Well 1973 ain’t all that long ago and that check plus current military reality (Israeli detterence) have kept the peace.
Someone will have to watch the actual interview to make sure, but that looks like a transcription typo (spelling auto-correct) -- replace "isn't his" with "in this" and it reads perfectly fine.
You are uninform.....she just said in the statement above that Murbarak has supported our interest for 30 years and we had a recepical relationship with him for such a time......but that it was unethical....it was more of a statement of fact that we play dirty with a lot of folks
Btw, if you and Pissant love giving foreign aid to many countries without questioning whether or not it’s effective then that’s not prudent of you
So let me get this straight. You are in favor of spending billions of our dollars propping up dictators until they skip town with our money?
She’s more than half-right. But Obama’s all wrong.
Washington as President, Jefferson as Ambassador and John Adams as President did the same thing — buy off the bad guys in the Barbary Coast. It’s both moral and ethical, up to a point. It depends on what happens with the bad guys.
As Jefferson and John Jay came to see — it doesn’t always work, it makes the situation worse even. The buy-off of the bad guys was too much to pay for the new national US Government, and it only encouraged other bad guys to get into the business of going after US shipping. When Jefferson became President he immediately set out forming up a Navy and Marines sufficient to strike back at the bad guys. That worked, but not perfectly. Without wiping out the bastard culture of Islam, new bad guys always pop up in its soil, and old ones continue in treachery.
It’s immoral and unethical to deal which such people, once their type is known. The rule is thus — Muslim, sort of, and can be paid off in a modest way, and the action doesn’t encourage others in that local Muslim courage to become bad guys — ethical and moral. Muslim, and they don’t stop being bad guys, or they encourage others to be so, and/or they demand more and more — overwhelm them with awesome force, and kill as many as possible — sparing none in their company.
With Mubarak? An iffy call. Palin might be 100% right.
This is NOT an easy, pat thing to deal with.
Like I said, Obama’s all wrong.
One that protected our interests, the security of Israel and world trade through the Suez Canal. Sounds like a good investment of our money.
Give us an alternative.
“So what exactly is wrong with what she said? “
This is just another Palin hit piece by Pissant. If I recall correctly Pissant is a big Romney supporter.
So.... what, precisely is Ms. Palin saying here? That we should, or should not, have been supporting Mubarak and Egypt?
Looks to me like she's trying to play it both ways.
It is possible Time skewed the words....maybe. Probably not, but who knows?
I am staying out of critical debate on her sneezing ability.
“Looks to me like she’s trying to play it both ways. “
Looks like she’s saying we picked the lesser of two evils.
She didn't say that AT ALL.
Then, why doesn't she or you tell us the alternative to Mubarak over the past 30 years, one that would have protected our interests, the security of Israel and the Suez Canal.
It's easy to criticize when one doesn't have a better answer to policy that was clearly in the best interest of the free world.
Palin didn't say otherwise.
What she did do was denigrate Mubarak's getting so rich off our funds and she said we have to watch that in future.
It was an excellent point.
Because, in this case, the money was a good investment for the free world for 30 years.
Did you read what she said? She said that Murbarak supported our interest! And we had a back n forth relationship with him. It’s just that it was an unethical as a statement of fact
God, what the hell is going wrong around her where a found statement if facts is turned upside down
Did you read what she said? She said that Murbarak supported our interest! And we had a back n forth relationship with him. It’s just that it was an unethical as a statement of fact
God, what the hell is going wrong around her where a sound statement if facts is turned upside down
Just these headlines alone
Egypt president vows to put a stop to terrorism after church attack - 2011
Egypt’s Mubarak cracks down on Muslim Brotherhood -2006
Egypt cracks down on foreign protesters heading to Gaza Strip - 2009
Report: Egypt Uncovers Stockpile of Weaponry Intended for Hamas - 2010
Egypt Uncovers Nine More Weapons Caches- 2010
Report: Egypt arrests Palestinian terrorist cells in Sinai - 2008
Egypt tells Iran: mind your own business - 2011
Egypt tells Iran to butt out of Persian Gulf states 2010
US, Egypt, Israel Sign 3-Way Trade Pact; May Fall Foul Of WTO - 2004
SOUTH LEBANON: Israel, Egypt sign natural gas deal - 2010
Egypt arrests 7 over deadly Coptic church attack in Alexandria - 2010
Egypt arrests hundreds of Muslim Brotherhood members - 2010
The problem is that she's saying two things at once. She acknowledges the very great strategic advantages we've gained from supporting Mubarak .... and though she didn't mention it, that partnership has been a boon to the world.
And then she implies that we maybe shouldn't have gone that route after all, because Mubarak isn't a nice man.
I'll be blunt: it's difficult to discern much difference between Ms. Palin's pollyannish view of the situation, and the views expressed by Mr. Obama.
No, she's saying we shouldn't have done it at all.
She didn't say "watch that," she said "pull back." As in, "don't do it."
Is that what she meant? Who knows. But it is is what she said.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.