Time for Obama to denounce Mubarak

[Feanor]

Or could it be that many Americans see no need to become involved in a multi-generational, century-long temper tantrum?
...

Maybe they should be; maybe it's a matter of survival.

...
As you've conceeded, it's not that I'm unaware of prevailing attitudes, it's that I, and many others, simply don't give a good damn.
...

See my comment above.

...
Including promotion of the publicly-stated reservations about the Muslim Brotherhood? If the Muslim Brotherhood is what passes for a moderate voice of conciliation I fear for the region and the world...

...and when did they become moderate? Was it when they stopped officially sanctioning assassinations and disseminating Arab translations of Mein Kampf? Is it now that they merely support state-sponsored Sharia Law and the oppression of women and noncompliant minorities?
...

I said relatively moderate. If this is the organization the Egyptians will vote for in a democratic election, then we'd better sucking it up. (Because the alternate strategy isn't working.)

...
Again, why does this always turn into a discussion about the American experience? The League of Nations was comprised of blackhearted and bumbling old men from across the globe. Where's the China hate? The Belgium hate? Hell, even the damn Serbs supported the British Mandate to oversee Palestine.

Do want you want the US to quit being the world's leading nation? Personally I really hope it doesn't because, for the time being, (a generation or so), nobody else is able to do it. When you're a leader you're held to a high standard and you'd better watch your behavior -- or watch your back.

[GMichael]

Do want you want the US to quit being the world's leading nation? Personally I really hope it doesn't because, for the time being, (a generation or so), nobody else is able to do it. When you're a leader you're held to a high standard and you'd better watch your behavior -- or watch your back.

We'll gladly step down if it means that we can stop being the world's whipping post. Who's next in line?

[Feanor]

We'll gladly step down if it means that we can stop being the world's whipping post. Who's next in line?

The world is better for somebody providing a good and powerful influence -- political, economic, moral. If the US stands down, some other country will step up who won't be as able to do it. This could be a major problem for world, including the US. Do you think we'd be better off with China taking over?

[GMichael]

The world is better for somebody providing a good and powerful influence -- political, economic, moral. If the US stands down, some other country will step up who won't be as able to do it. This could be a major problem for world, including the US. Do you think we'd be better off with China taking over?

China? My wild guess is no. How about if the U.N takes over? Wasn't that the original idea?

[Hyfi]

The world is better for somebody providing a good and powerful influence -- political, economic, moral. If the US stands down, some other country will step up who won't be as able to do it. This could be a major problem for world, including the US. Do you think we'd be better off with China taking over?

Ha, we are so moral, our politicians are lying sacks of crap, and doesn't China basically own us because we are trillions in debt?

The UN is the right choice but nobody listens to them because there is nothing to back them up....but us.

[Feanor]

Ha, we are so moral, our politicians are lying sacks of crap, and doesn't China basically own us because we are trillions in debt?

The UN is the right choice but nobody listens to them because there is nothing to back them up....but us.

The UN, it would be nice to think, is the right choice but there are many issues.

The US is largest funder based on the official UN funding formula which itself is mainly on per capita income (and various other qualifications). The US has also been a fairly reliable in actualy making its prescibed funding payments while various other countries have not.

But the US' role is a bit different when it comes to supporting UN resolutions. Since 1965 it has veto far more resolutions than any other nation; (before '65 the distinction went to the Soviet Union). Since 1989 the US has veto 13 of 19 resolutions vetoed; of these 11 pertained to the middle east and mostly pertaining to criticisms of Isreal, (now there's a really big surprise). (See Wikipedia item HERE.)

Without being an expert, I suspect the powers of the Security Council would have to be extensively rethought for the UN to be effective. Presently there are five permanent member countries all of whom have an absolute veto, plus five more countries without veto elected by the General Assembly for set terms of office. Maybe the SC total membership should be expanded to, say, 20; the 5 permanent members changed and/or expanded in number; and the veto abolished with 60% or 2/3 majority requirement replacing it.

Beyond this supposedly the UN cannot intervene in the "internal affairs" of any country. This restriction perhaps ougth to be removed under some circumstances.