I don't get why all these pundits are trying to shame Obama into getting involved in Egypt.

There’s seems to be a hue and cry from punditry across the spectrum for President Obama to get more heavily involved in the fighting going on in Egypt. Given that the history of the US trying to meddle in MENA politics is a pretty mixed bag I think we are doing well to keep our distance.

This is IMO a showdown between the theocratic and secular forces at play in Egypt. There will be no winning hand for the US to play getting directly involved in this bloodbath. His cautious approach is exactly right.

McCain also wants to leap in.

Because no matter what, Obama will be wrong. Same with Syria. This is what the GOP wants.

You’re right, the USA should never meddle with ME politics. Cut off funding, publicly decry activities, send humanitarian aid. Never send weapons or troops. Not even to Syria.

You are right, we have two choices: Support a Junta/Dictator OR support Islamic extremists. Neither is good.

Yep, I’m at a loss as to which side is supposed to be American friendly.
I am for cutting off aid though.

Exactly. These are people who have been very open that their number one priority is to make Obama fail, regardless of the cost. They want him to intervene in Egypt in order to create as large a disaster as possible that they can blame on him - they certainly aren’t going to acknowledge that they pushed for intervention once the disaster gets rolling.

Because once he gets involved, then they can complain about Obama “starting another war” and “increasing the deficit” and “throwing in with Muslim radicals”.

Same shit, different day.

Juntas are somewhat better than Islamist extremists. The US support fights against Islamic extremism, either openly or stealthily.

Because it’s their job. Obama could single-handedly defeat Satan in unarmed combat live on TV and these people would still have to get up in the morning and tell everyone that Obama was bad. These people have nothing to do with news, they are paid political advertisers.

Because we can’t really call ourselves civilized if we watch from the sidelines as innocent people are being butchered?

See Darfur. Same story, Republican President. Who, of course, was accused of being calloused for not stepping in.

What innocents are being butchered?

Wow.

I think this will explain things.

I want the best for the people of Egypt, but I have absolutely no idea what “the best” would be or how to bring it about.

Right now, the two likeliest scenarios (military dictatorship or an Islamist state) are equally unappealing, and the USA shouldn’t devote any resources to making either of those things happen.

There’s no clear course of action. President Obama is right not to do anything at this time.

For what it’s worth, I read assorted right-wing web sites all the time, and I have yet to see ANYONE screaming for Obama to intervene militarily in Egypt.

The Huffington Post piece linked doesn’t mention any major right wing pundits by name, either.

So, all the people ready to snipe at the GOP might want to pull back a second and ask "WHO exactly is beating the drums of war here?

Well, I sure have a hard time figuring out which side is supposed to be innocent. I have had ideas on which side I thought was in the right, but even that is getting shaky. I haven’t been following it all that closely, but I haven’t seen any mention of one side or the other deliberately killing non-combatants, and the only Google result for children being killed in Egypt is about a train crash. Well, that, and one side claiming that there are a lot of children dying, and the other side claiming that this is false.

There are quite a few other situations where it was clear who were the innocents, and we didn’t get involved then. We sure as heck shouldn’t get involved now. Especially since both sides completely hate us and don’t want us involved.

I knew a few old and long gone guys who were convinced that Franco was a butchering fascist and that something should be done about it, and they told me they went and fought. None of these Beltway Blowhards would put his own neck on the line.

My first reaction is, “Dear God, no, the last thing the world needs is the US getting involved in Egypt.”

The pundits I read seem to want him to cut off aid.

Somewhere I read that France ping-ponged between extreme radicalism (which included the terror) and reestablishment of a monarchy for much of the 19th century until a genuine republic was established. Why should we expect anything different in the Middle East?

The real problem is that whoever is in power governs for the benefit of his followers and suppresses the opposition. It is not a question of democracy; it is a question of treating all citizens equally.

IMHO, the Quebec government is guilty of the sin of governing for the benefit of 70% of its citizens, which in my mind is the unforgivable sin. But the Canadian government can prevent some of the damage. Compare also the US south before the civil rights act. Now, with the SCOTUS’s blessing, the south can rise again.

The answer is simple: The people calling for intervention are not the ones who will be fighting, and would not be responsible if things go wrong (and would condemn Obama for following their advice).

Because he’s black. Same as with anything else he’s opposed on.

(note: I think getting involved in Egypt in any fashion would be disastrous)

And neither do the Republicans, not does anyone else. But the answer to the OP is this: