We had no military action in Egypt.
What's the problem with talking?
Combine this, with sectarian and Tribal violence in Post-War Libya as bad (if not worse) than currently going on in Iraq, and the right will be claiming a hardcore "Told you so" during the Presidential Campaign.Muslim Brotherhood envoys met with White House officials in DC
White House officials met this week with envoys from the Muslim Brotherhood, in the latest sign that the Islamist group is returning to prominence in post-Mubarak Egypt after years in political exile.
White House Press Secretary Jay Carney said representatives from the organization met with "mid-level" officials from the National Security Council in Washington.
The meeting was held Tuesday, though it's unclear whether they met at the White House or elsewhere in the capital.
The Obama administration cast the decision to meet with Brotherhood representatives as a reflection of political reality in the country, since the group will play a "prominent role" in Cairo going forward.
"We have broadened our engagement to include new and emerging political parties and actors," Carney said Thursday. "Because of the fact that Egypt's political landscape has changed, the actors have become more diverse and our engagement reflects that. The point is that we will judge Egypt's political actors by how they act -- not by their religious affiliation."
He also noted that Republican Sens. John McCain and Lindsey Graham met with the Brotherhood on a visit to Egypt.
The Brotherhood was officially banned under Hosni Mubarak before he was overthrown, though it continued to be a force in Egyptian politics. The Brotherhood has past ties to terror group Hamas and espouses the implementation of Shariah law.
But the Brotherhood, which says it is committed to nonviolence, returned to win control of the country's parliament in post-Mubarak elections.
And despite saying earlier it would not put up a presidential candidate, the Brotherhood over the weekend nominated a prominent businessman to run.
The United States, though, has not condemned the move. Administration officials have told The New York Times they were actually optimistic about the nomination -- as he could pose a challenge to another hard-line Islamist candidate now leading the race.
Man, we really have gotten bad at winning Wars, probably because we keep getting entangled in Wars that really have no clear purpose and can't be "won" like old school Wars could.
Pakistan, Syria, Africa, etc.
Not a clear-cut victory in the bunch.
We had no military action in Egypt.
What's the problem with talking?
Don't think we'll see much froth. This has been out a few days now. There hasn't been a post yet.
P.S. I see you conveniently left out our biggest, most expensive war. The War on Drugs. We won that one.
We exerted heavy political pressure on a 30+ year ally that helped lead to his being deposed, and replaced with a Millitary Dictatorship, that will be replaced by a Democraticly Elected Pro-Islamic Fundamentalist Pro-War-With-Israel Majority.
I'm fine with that btw. Their country, to do with as they wish.
As long as they don't **** with us or our allies.
Depends on who you're talking to.What's the problem with talking?
For example, I wouldn't talk with the Third Reich.
I wouldn;t talk with Stalin's Soviet Union.
And personally, I wouldn't talk with an Islamic Fundamentalist/Terrorist State who wants to wage war on an ally of ours.
But it's for each voter to decide how they feel about our role in the changes in Egypt, why we did what we did, and what the outcome is.
I'd bet there are MANY Deocrat voters who think this is the best possible outcome for Egypt and welcome allying with the M.B. with open arms.
He is just breaking bread, then serving a pork chop dinner.
met with "mid-level" officials
Whether we supported Mubarak or not, it's likely the Egyptians would have deposed him. Lets not make it sound like we were integral in deposing him, that it was our choice. In fact, we probably supported him right up until it was unfashionable to do so.
I mean are we really ready to call the Muslim Brotherhood the Third Reich? Listen I'm not defending these guys, let me be clear, but I just, you know, I just don't see how they're the Third Reich and we shouldn't be talking to them at all.
Talking to them also doesn't really imply anything, we could be saying "Hey, you f*** with Israel, you f*** with us." Meeting over. After the wikileaks scandal where we learned that we say publicly is largely what we say privately, unlike the rest of the goddam world, I wouldn't really worry so much about this.
Welcoming them with open arms. Man, what a partisan way to describe "democrat voters wants" with reality. You think as a democratic voter I even want to talk to these people that treat their women like sh*t? Of course not. But this is the real world, and part of being in the real world is talking to people that you do not like in order to not physically fight them over every difference.
Disagree on frothyness. It'd be different if it was al Queda, Taliban, or Hamas.
Don't downplay the power of Obama now, his publicly stated position and lack of any support was absolutely vital to this outcome. Like it or not, he owns a part of that, same as he owns a part of the future of Libya, and the ongoing tribal slaughter there.
I didn't say the Soviet Union during the Cold War. I said Stalin's Soviet Union. Given the depths of evil of that man and that regime.We have and did talk to the Soviet Union during the Cold War... a lot.
Absolutely.I mean are we really ready to call the Muslim Brotherhood the Third Reich?
You couldn't ask for a closer ideal by ideal comparison to be honest, outside their core motivation (one is faith, one is ethnicity, also not exactly worlds apart).
Riiiiiight.Talking to them also doesn't really imply anything, we could be saying "Hey, you f*** with Israel, you f*** with us." Meeting over.
disagree on frothy ness.
Frothyness is saved for Obama's kids going on vacation or Michelle suggesting we eat veggies.
This wasn't that long ago. We did not make nor were we "instrumental" in Egypt's revolution. The prevailing criticism and opinion at the time was that the US was never exactly clear on what it wanted till the very end when it became inevitable that Mubarak would be gone.
I'm not a Neo-Con, I don't support policies of theoretical "presumptive preemption".Listen if you really think they're an "ideal comparison" to Stalin and the Third Reich, you should be calling for us to fight them now in Egypt before they ever reach that level.
Again, why not just stay away FF? Is it really so hard? Is annoying me and stalking my threads really the only fun you can have?
Listen, there is no nuance or irony, just trolling and derailing. Standard issue troll material, without any style or substance. I don't need it "dumbed down" FF, as you're as dumb as it comes round here.Listen, if you had any sense or nuance or irony my posts would be crystal-clear and on point. I'm not going to dumb it down just for you.
Now, sod off. You're neither wanted nor needed here. Can't be more clear than that.