Muslim Brotherhood wins Presidency in Egypt. Is the U.S. safer with the Muslim brotherhood in charge than we were with Mumbarak?

by Assassin~ Badass Buzz Guru Posted 2012/06/18 14:55:50

Related Topics: Muslim Brotherhood, Muslim, Egypt

Read More

41 votes
Read all 42 opinions
View Results and Demographics + View Demographics

Loading Demographics... Click an icon to see demographic results Display unknown and private
	Yes, thank goodness we got rid of Mumbarak.	6 votes	15%
	No, Mumbarak was better.	35 votes	85%

+10

Add a comment above

Flowers 2012/06/18 15:01:13

No, Mumbarak was better.

+5
The muslim brotherhood is vicious. Not really sure which one is worse. But the people of Egypt are not better off.
>> See Replies

More polls by Assassin~ Badass Buzz Guru

Billyk75 2012/06/20 15:26:57

No, Mumbarak was better.

Remember the Iranian Revolution of 1979?

reply
Playerazzi 2012/06/20 08:38:57

No, Mumbarak was better.

First of all, it's MUbarak, without the extra "m".

Second of all, Mubarak was better for the U.S. and most other countries, BUT I think he wasn't so hot for Egypt. I don't blame them voting in the Muslim Brotherhood.

reply
Jdogg 2012/06/20 04:52:23

No, Mumbarak was better.

The military is not going to step down, The muslim brotherhood is going to find out who's really in charge here.And it's not going to be them.

reply
wtw 2012/06/20 02:09:09

No, Mumbarak was better.

Duh? But that is what Obama wanted!

reply
wamcalif 2012/06/20 02:02:31

No, Mumbarak was better.

He was a friend of the west, but obviously not a friend to his own people. I hear the military immediately curtailed the powers of the presidency. Maybe what Egypt really has is a military junta.

reply
☆ QueenAline 2012/06/20 01:19:54

No, Mumbarak was better.

Mumbarak was the lesser of the two evils

reply
Christine/Rest in peace Pet... 2012/06/20 01:11:02

No, Mumbarak was better.

I wish Obama had stayed out of this one. His Arab spring is turning into a Muslim Brotherhood victory dance. The deal Obama made with MB was that they were not supposed to run anyone in the elections. Obama actually believed this? Things are really working out well for us in the Middle East. We go in at a drop of a hat to hurry change in countries that have leaders relatively friendly to US (especially Mubarak), yet ignore leaders who are killing on large scale, or the cries of Iranians who wanted our help.

reply
Freeranger 2012/06/19 23:54:35

No, Mumbarak was better.

+1
News flash for the uninformed. Mubarek was a wall against the muslim onslaught. Prepare for the worst there now.

reply
U-Dog 2012/06/19 23:09:00

No, Mumbarak was better.

The little putzs who started the whole revolution are deep chit now... and I think it is a perfect example of the "Open Society Movement" idiots helping the Egyptian people jump from the frying pan into the fire. It has happened at least a thousand times thruout history and it just goes to prove once again that it makes little sense to overthrow a tyrant when you are clueless and don't have a solid plan for replacing them with something better.

reply
Mike 2012/06/19 23:08:17

No, Mumbarak was better.

Not according to my neighbors who are from Lebanon

reply
joe ramirez 2012/06/19 23:01:36

No, Mumbarak was better.

You've got to be joking!

reply
Don Leuty 2012/06/19 22:57:28

No, Mumbarak was better.

Alleged White House leaks and drone hit lists probably have made it riskier. While I know that 0bama is a technology freak, drone hits not only kill al Qaeda operative, but the opportunity to keep tabs on their members, It was the caliph that led us to Osama. Some of those head 0 is lopping off could be intelligence assets. Drones are not video games. Dead men don't tell tales.

reply
none 2012/06/19 22:50:17

No, Mumbarak was better.

+2
The MB is radical, anyone who thinks we, Egypt, or the rest of the world is safer is fooling themselves.

reply
☠ Live Free Or Die ☠ 2012/06/19 22:49:10

No, Mumbarak was better.

+2
When will we ever learn....

reply
JP 2012/06/19 22:48:15

No, Mumbarak was better.

+1
The ineptness of the Obama regime now on world wide display!

reply
Heisenberg 2012/06/19 22:45:15

No, Mumbarak was better.

+4
Mubarak was infinitely better than the Muslim Brotherhood.

The Arab spring has been a disaster for the USA.

reply
Jane 2012/06/19 04:52:15

Yes, thank goodness we got rid of Mumbarak.

+1
Question is, are the Egyptian people safer.

reply
beach bum 2012/06/19 03:08:50

No, Mumbarak was better.

+3
no

reply
JesusIsMyGod 2012/06/18 17:24:46

No, Mumbarak was better.

+2
I do not like either one, but I cannot stand terrorist groups. If they had their way, I would be dead.

reply
capoeir... to JesusIs... 2012/06/18 17:37:40

I wish terrorist groups would stop, too. But I feel bad for the Muslims who are not trying to hurt anybody.

reply
Sister Jean 2012/06/18 17:13:53

Yes, thank goodness we got rid of Mumbarak.

+1
safer

reply
Assassi... to Sister ... 2012/06/18 19:18:25

+2
I don't see how.

reply
Rebel Yell 2012/06/18 16:54:11

Yes, thank goodness we got rid of Mumbarak.

+1
Egypt has a large population under 30. They were educated and jobless and totally suppressed under Mubarek. Through the social technology network, they organized drove his sorry azz out. The Muslim Brotherhod watched all of this unfold.... and they know that unless the young Egyptians have a better chance at a comfortable and meaningful life with a political voice, they will be history as well. The Egyptians know this too. They have been empowered.

reply
Assassi... to Rebel Yell 2012/06/18 19:18:56

+2
Yes, the Muslim Brotherhood has been "empowering" people for years.

reply
harley oldman 2012/06/18 16:50:16

No, Mumbarak was better.

+4
Actually part of the Muslim Brotherhood won President of the US in `08..!

reply
Assassi... to harley ... 2012/06/18 19:19:06

+2
What Drivel.

reply
harley ... to Assassi... 2012/06/21 17:37:53

Hey Ass..... If it walks like a Duck and quacks like a Duck......well you (maybe) get the drift...!

reply
BigFig#9 2012/06/18 16:37:37

Yes, thank goodness we got rid of Mumbarak.

+3
Not quite sure how much of a threat either is/was BUT if we really believe in the trans-formative power of democracy we have to understand that it's sometimes messy getting there.

reply
Max 2012/06/18 16:32:54

No, Mumbarak was better.

+1
They won the presidency but Mubarak's head of the military, Shafiq, is in charge of the military and he won't give up the power to rule. He has already abolished the democratically elected parliament and rewritten the Constitution that they drew up.

reply
Idiot repubs 2012/06/18 16:29:46

Yes, thank goodness we got rid of Mumbarak.

+1
We're safe from Egyptians regardless.

Is there anything the right wing isn't afraid of?

reply
Assassi... to Idiot r... 2012/06/18 19:20:08

+2
I'm not a right winger. I think Mumbarak was better than the Muslim brotherhood for the advancement of women, and equal rights.

reply
Idiot r... to Assassi... 2012/06/18 20:58:33

True, but the question was "is the US safer?" I don't think Egypt is attacking us anytime soon.

reply
Assassi... to Idiot r... 2012/06/18 21:02:58

+3
I think it is bad for the overall relationship with Egypt.

reply
Idiot r... to Assassi... 2012/06/18 21:11:27

+1
Remains to be seen.

reply
tommyg - POTL- PWCM-JLA 2012/06/18 16:03:37

No, Mumbarak was better.

+3
Time will tell.

reply
CrazyDeen0 2012/06/18 15:57:17

No, Mumbarak was better.

+2
The U.S. is as safe as our foreign policy allows us to be. Other than that it is up to us to always be prepared for anything.

reply
mk, Smartass Oracle 2012/06/18 15:24:24

No, Mumbarak was better.

+4
It's really too early to tell, but Mubarak was an ally of the US

reply
whitewulf--the unruly mobster 2012/06/18 15:20:29
JesusIs... to whitewu... 2012/06/18 17:26:01

+2
May he rest in peace. :'(

reply
JoeBtfsplk 2012/06/18 15:05:23

No, Mumbarak was better.

+3
"D'oh!"

reply