Obama's speech at the univ of Cairo [Archive]

Lemur

06-04-2009, 15:53

Video here (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6BlqLwCKkeY), audio here (http://audio.wnyc.org/news/news20090604_obama_cairo_speech.mp3).

Reactions on da webs regarding the Israeli angle:

A wise Israeli Prime Minster such as we don't have, would have gone on air two minutes after Obama's speech and said "As the elected leader of Israel and foremost political figure in the Jewish world, I welcome President Obama's speech wholeheartedly. He speaks for us, too, in our joint aspirations for peace dignity freedom and well-being in the Middle East and everywhere. We will do whatever we can to assist him in realizing his fine vision". Let the Arabs wriggle and squirm. Why should we be defensive after such a positive speech? Of course much of what he asked for will never happen. Let the enemies of the vision stand forth and reject it. How did we paint ourselves into their camp? — Yaacov Lozowick (http://yaacovlozowick.blogspot.com/2009/06/afternoon-after-speech.html)

The world is the worse for this speech because it was not honest about the situation in the Middle East, not honest about the threat from Iran, not honest about Israel's deep desire to be allowed to live in peace, and not honest about the determination of Hamas, Hezbollah and Iran to destroy Israel and to gain the weapons necessary to do so in an instant. No speech so deeply dishonest in its omissions or so rhetorically misleading its its assumptions and arguments can do anything other than communicate extraordinary weakness on the part of the United States. It will indeed be a famous speech, for all the wrong reasons. — Hugh Hewitt (http://townhall.com/blog/g/442be22f-06ee-4abc-88e3-3e0945f817a4)

An African-American President with Muslim roots stands before the Muslim world and defends the right of Jews to a nation of their own in their ancestral homeland, and then denounces in vociferous terms the evil of Holocaust denial, and right-wing Israelis go forth and complain that the President is unsympathetic to the housing needs of settlers. Incredible, just incredible. — Jeffrey Goldberg (http://jeffreygoldberg.theatlantic.com/archives/2009/06/an_absolutely_extraordinary_mo.php)

National Review, which is anti-Obama ground zero, is being strangely quiet. One of their bloggers did manage to squeeze out this nugget of wisdom (http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NWMzOTJiMDFmYmQ2OTQwODZjMjkxNzcyMjQ4ZTUwMjk=):

[W]hat the president said was damaging, wrong, and at times simply shameful.

His speech was rife with moral equivalence. The Iranian Revolution was bad, but so was the U.S. overthrow of Mossadeq in 1953. The Holocaust was bad, but “on the other hand” so is the Israeli occupation of Palestine. The events are not comparable. [...]

Also little noticed was the fact that Obama announced a major shift in U.S. policy in the Holy Land. In 2002, President Bush declared in his Rose Garden address that America would only engage “Palestinian leaders not compromised by terror.” In Cairo today, Obama reversed this policy, declaring that Hamas has “to play a role in fulfilling Palestinian aspirations, and to unify the Palestinian people.” This is naïve and dangerous.

Fox News, with its usual truthiness (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truthiness), has the following headline:

https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v489/Lemurmania/Untitled.jpg

Hooahguy

06-04-2009, 17:06

well said by Obama on Israel, and i agree with him completely. :bow:

Lemur

06-04-2009, 17:17

AP roundup (http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5i9Fn1iXzTXuYdO20X-RHRhhcPMUwD98JU4880) of Islamic reactions.

Don Corleone

06-04-2009, 18:02

I think he glossed over some finer points with respect to Hamas, but all in all, it was a good speech and a good step forward.

JAG

06-05-2009, 15:35

Quite a superb speech, exactly what was needed. Common sense and real understanding.

Reverend Joe

06-05-2009, 18:24

/waits for the nonconformists to blast Obama...

seireikhaan

06-07-2009, 18:06

I thought the speech was very nice, for the most part.

Kurando

06-07-2009, 20:06

Wonderful speech, I felt some genuine emotion watching and listening + both sides of the fence are very fortunate to have such a person as Obama come forward at this point in history.

But as they once said in the Simpsons: "...will Homer's fence-mending eggs bear fruit? Or will his olive branch be torn apart by woodpeckers of mistrust?"

Louis VI the Fat

06-08-2009, 11:54

Naturally, I couldn't disagree more with Obama's speech.

I suspect Obama of being a non-believer. He doesn't dare say so to his American electorate. He doesn't dare say so to the world at large. Alas, in his speech, he didn't find the courage to call a spade a spade.

Obama should have castigated the Islamic world for caving in to the demands of this violent religion. Several decades ago, the Islamic world was governed mostly by secular states. These governments discredited themselves with corruption, abuse and incompetence. Islamofascism could fester, and raise its ugly head.
Like fascism proper, it is not backward, mediaeval. It is a modern alternative to modern challenges. But the wrong one.

The Islamic world should go the way of China, of Singapore. The way of Malaysia or Turkey - predominantly Islamic countries. Not the way of Iran, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan.
Development, not a retreat into backwardness and unfreedom.

In America, a Muslim is a free man. He can provide for his family. In safety and in dignity.
Whereas, where the Islam rules, the life of a Muslim is held anything but sacred. He is tortured. His children are kept away from education. His wife is property.

Obama held his speech in Cairo university. An ancient institution of higher learning. Older than Bologna, Paris and Oxford. Three decades ago, unveiled Egyptian women studied law and medicine here. Today, with virtually no exception, female students, under great threat, wear the hijabh.

Ironside

06-08-2009, 16:05

Naturally, I couldn't disagree more with Obama's speech.

I suspect Obama of being a non-believer. He doesn't dare say so to his American electorate. He doesn't dare say so to the world at large. Alas, in his speech, he didn't find the courage to call a spade a spade.

He's the president of America, where the flaunting of your religious devotion is important standard stuff by some obscure reason. (I don't know the religious devotion of our prime minister and most or our ministers, nor do I care).

Obama should have castigated the Islamic world for caving in to the demands of this violent religion. Several decades ago, the Islamic world was governed mostly by secular states. These governments discredited themselves with corruption, abuse and incompetence. Islamofascism could fester, and raise its ugly head.
Like fascism proper, it is not backward, mediaeval. It is a modern alternative to modern challenges. But the wrong one.

While I agree on the analysis, do you really think that open castigation would make the Islamic world less Islamofascistic? People usually react better to a friendly advice than an insult, however true that might be.

rory_20_uk

06-08-2009, 16:22

In speaches that are going to be viewed by the world making diggs at one's host is a sure-fire way of making them less likely to budge as open condemnation has already happened. A quiet word that if things aren't loosened the USA might not be so overtly friendly would probably achieve more.

It seems that in many parts of the world Muslims would like to be more free, and it is the leadership that are able to point at the hostility of the West that keeps them in power (e.g. Iran - Axis Of Evil was a Godsend to the leadership). Villifying a guardedly welcoming power is much harder.

Christianity was its most ruthless when loosing against the Moors and the Ottoman Empire, and conversely Islam was the most open. Now as Islam feels besieged they as a religion are battening down the hatches and retreating to the better times that never really were about 500 years ago.

~:smoking:

Lemur

06-08-2009, 22:43

Alas, in his speech, he didn't find the courage to call a spade a spade.
Is this the second, third or fourth time you've managed to use that metaphor in relation to our President? Bit of a pattern forming ...

Obama should have castigated the Islamic world for caving in to the demands of this violent religion.
Yeah, a good lecture and some talking-down would really move the moderate Muslims into our corner. If anything, Islamists are noted for their lack of pride.

The rest of your post bears no relationship to the speech given, so I'll just wander on.

rotorgun

06-08-2009, 23:43

I think that it was a brilliant speech, worthy of a leader from a great nation that is trying to come to terms with the results of a very disturbing policy during the turbulent Bush II administration. After reviewing the criticisms by Israeli, Western European, and leaders from some Muslim organizations, I will say this. My wife uses an expression, which is how she tends to rate the sincerity of people:

Let your actions speak louder than your words, for it is the deed which reveals the character of the speaker and the truth behind what they say.-Rotorgun's wife

Evil_Maniac From Mars

06-08-2009, 23:50

Did he speak well? Of course (teleprompter or no, I'm not sure which is accurate). Am I completely comfortable with everything he said? No. Was I comfortable with some of the things he said? Yes.

Not a bad article. (http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2009/06/06/george-jonas-israel-has-much-to-fear-in-obama-s-support.aspx)

Incongruous

06-09-2009, 04:26

Good political speech, very impressive rhetoric.

However as someone who despises political speeches, I will also despise the bollocks which spouted forth from Obama's mouth in the first few lines "historical forces". "Cold war when". "We meet at a time of tension between the United States and Muslims around the world – tension rooted in historical forces that go beyond any current policy debate. "

"The situation in Afghanistan demonstrates America's goals, and our need to work together" Yep, it sure does.

"I am aware that some question or justify the events of 9/11. But let us be clear: al Qaeda killed nearly 3,000 people on that day. The victims were innocent men, women and children from America and many other nations who had done nothing to harm anybody. And yet Al Qaeda chose to ruthlessly murder these people, claimed credit for the attack, and even now states their determination to kill on a massive scale. They have affiliates in many countries and are trying to expand their reach. These are not opinions to be debated; these are facts to be dealt with."

Right, wish he would explain just how many people the U.S has murdered in Afganistan via its support for Ilamists and a ruthless bombing campaign. Or tell us all about the prior planning for an invasion of Afghanistan during the "Six-Plus-Two" talks in 2001.

The self righteousness and his impressive ability to make critical minds numb to the hard facts is quite astounding.

"two peoples" that seems to be his idea of what Israel-Palestine means, what it really is, is "The west vs. displaced, starving, hateful refugees who suffer non-stop day and night". "Palestinians must abandon violence. Resistance through violence and killing is wrong and does not succeed."
As soon as he holds up military aid to Israel and demands the IDF be answerable to War Crimes committed in January, I'll clap, until then its more of the same.

This guy is a joke.

Alexander the Pretty Good

06-09-2009, 04:48

Rather elegantly said, Louis. But sometimes you French do have a way with words...

Here's (http://www.amconmag.com/larison/2009/06/07/more-on-cairo/) a little something from the American Conservative (criticizing both the speech and National Review's reaction in one shot).

The approach that conservatives find infuriating when directed at them is the same one he was using on Thursday in Cairo: define the limits of the debate, establish one’s own views as the balanced, reasonable center of the debate, invite people from either side to join the ostensibly reasonable center, and thereby marginalize those who continue to ignore or oppose you. What critics such as Frum keep missing, much as many others missed it during Obama’s time at the Trinidad Summit of the Americas, is that Obama is making it much more difficult for other nations to oppose the United States without marginalizing themselves internationally. With respect to the Cairo speech, it does not legitimize or empower fanatics to acknowledge concerns that they have traditionally exploited to their advantage. On the contrary, acknowledging these concerns deprives the fanatics of their monopoly on paying attention and defining the appropriate responses to these concerns. Better still, acknowledging a past event, such as the U.S. role in ousting Mossadegh, steals the power from those who have made use of a real grievance for their own ends. More than this, though, simple acknowledgment of past error allows for a delay and deferral of any substantive change in present-day policy. Ironically, the more unequal the comparison between U.S. actions and those with which Obama compared them, the less substantive change in present policy there will be. Mild displays of humility make real concessions less urgent, and it makes it more likely that they can be avoided entirely. Those who are generally satisfied with establishment policies and the current status quo as usual have the least to fear from Obama, and so it is fitting that they are the ones making the loudest complaints.

Xiahou

06-09-2009, 07:05

In America, a Muslim is a free man. He can provide for his family. In safety and in dignity.
Whereas, where the Islam rules, the life of a Muslim is held anything but sacred. He is tortured. His children are kept away from education. His wife is property.

Obama held his speech in Cairo university. An ancient institution of higher learning. Older than Bologna, Paris and Oxford. Three decades ago, unveiled Egyptian women studied law and medicine here. Today, with virtually no exception, female students, under great threat, wear the hijabh.That should have been in his speech. Like most of Obama's speeches, this one was fairly nauseating- it was designed to make him look good, not his country.

Here's (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bM1QigkSH8E) a video of some biting criticism from Krauthammer. I think he offers a good critique.

seireikhaan

06-09-2009, 07:34

Here's (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bM1QigkSH8E) a video of some biting criticism from Krauthammer. I think he offers a good critique.
I stopped listening when he complained of Iran fighting proxy wars against our proxies in the middle east.

I keep hearing from conservatives whining and moaning about Obama apologizing. I have yet to hear why that is actually a bad thing. Anyone who think the US' history is one naught but shining, elegant freedom is out of touch with reality. The US has taken plenty of actions that people would consider unethical, and its always been to secure a strategic purpose. Guess what, when you do that, others will always get caught in the crossfire. Mr. Krauthammer should realize that Israel itself was a form of imperialism against the Muslim world, as was the coup he admitted to. Apolizing for this does WHAT, exactlly? Embolden terrorists? How exactly are they not already bold? Hamas fires daily rockets. Terrorists flowed with ease into Iraq for years, and may do so again when the US formally withdraws most of the military presence. Pakistan and Afghanistan are both in pieces, and Lebanon is still mostly under Hezbollah control. Apparently those very real successes aren't sufficient enough "encouragement" to aspiring terrorists.

Further, the whole idea that the speech was naught but a series of apologies is a farce. If that's all someone was able to take out of the speech, they either A) Didn't listen to more than 10 percent of the speech or B) Are spinning.

seireikhaan

06-09-2009, 09:11

The self righteousness and his impressive ability to make critical minds numb to the hard facts is quite astounding.
Speaking of self righteousness.....

Fragony

06-09-2009, 09:39

Impressive speech. Right up there with the greatest. I kinda agree with Louis but there's a time and a place for everything, and right now we need more of this.

Kralizec

06-09-2009, 09:57

I thought that the speech itself was good, but that it signified very little. For example, "To play a role in fulfilling Palestinian aspirations, and to unify the Palestinian people, Hamas must put an end to violence, recognize past agreements, and recognize Israel's right to exist." - Bush or Rice could have said exactly the same thing.

We already knew Obama was a good orator. So far I haven't seen him do anything that would indicate he's a good president.

The Islamic world should go the way of China, of Singapore. The way of Malaysia or Turkey - predominantly Islamic countries. Not the way of Iran, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan.
Development, not a retreat into backwardness and unfreedom.

Malaysia is hardly a shining example of what an islamic country should look like:
http://www.amnesty.org/en/region/malaysia/report-2008
Restrictions on the right to religious freedom remained. People wishing to convert out of Islam continued to face barriers to having their conversion recognized by the civil courts.

* In January, Revathi, a Muslim by birth, was detained at the Malacca Syariah High Court while applying to have her religious status recognized as Hindu. She was taken to a religious rehabilitation camp in Selangor and held there for six months. In March, the Islamic authorities removed Revathi’s daughter from her husband, and placed her in the custody of Revathi’s Muslim mother.
* A 100-year-old Hindu temple was destroyed in Shah Alam in November, on the eve of the Hindu festival Deepavali. Several people were injured and 14 were arrested as devotees tried to stop the demolition. Other reportedly unauthorized Hindu temples were demolished to make way for development projects in 2007 despite petitions by local Hindu communities.

Louis VI the Fat

06-09-2009, 11:48

Is this the second, third or fourth time you've managed to use that metaphor in relation to our President? Bit of a pattern forming ...

The rest of your post bears no relationship to the speech given, so I'll just wander on.Oops. The spade metaphor was entirely unintentional. Rather unfortunate in the context here. I do not think I've used it before. Me and another poster were a bit naughty with it once, I didn't intend to do the same thing here.

The rest of my post bears no relationship to the speech that was given indeed. Which is the very point of my criticism of the speech.

Malaysia is hardly a shining example of what an islamic country should look like:Ah, thanks for that. I identified Malaysia with my monitor, computer components, and shiny skyscrapers in Kuala Lumpur. Apparantly, looks can be deceiving...

Impressive speech. Right up there with the greatest. I kinda agree with Louis but there's a time and a place for everything, and right now we need more of this.Hah! Says the man who no doubt voted Wilders two days ago. https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/images/icons/icon6.gif

But of course you're right. The tone is what mattered in this speech, not content.

Louis VI the Fat

06-09-2009, 13:09

Obama got it right in Turkey, in April. That is why I was so dissapointed with his speech in Cairo. Compare:

OBAMA: Mr. Speaker, Madam Deputy Speaker, distinguished members, I am honored to speak in this chamber, and I am committed to renewing the alliance between our nations and the friendship between our people.
This is my first trip overseas as President of the United States. I have been to the G-20 Summit in London, the NATO Summit in Strasbourg and Kehl, and the European Union Summit in Prague. Some people have asked me if I chose to continue my travels to Ankara and Istanbul to send a message. My answer is simple: Evet. Turkey is a critical ally. Turkey is an important part of Europe. And Turkey and the United States must stand together – and work together – to overcome the challenges of our time.

This morning I had the privilege of visiting the tomb of the great founder of your Republic. I was deeply impressed by this beautiful memorial to a man who did so much to shape the course of history. But it is also clear that the greatest monument to Ataturk’s life is not something that can be cast in stone and marble. His greatest legacy is Turkey’s strong and secular democracy, and that is the work that this assembly carries on today.

[...]

Now, our two democracies are confronted by an unprecedented set of challenges. An economic crisis that recognizes no borders. Extremism that leads to the killing of innocent men, women and children. Strains on our energy supply and a changing climate. The proliferation of the world’s deadliest weapons, and the persistence of tragic conflict.

[...]

I also know that Turkey has pursued difficult political reforms not simply because it’s good for Europe, but because it is right for Turkey.
In the last several years, you have abolished state-security courts and expanded the right to counsel. You have reformed the penal code, and strengthened laws that govern the freedom of the press and assembly. You lifted bans on teaching and broadcasting Kurdish, and the world noted with respect the important signal sent through a new state Kurdish television station.

These achievements have created new laws that must be implemented, and a momentum that should be sustained. For democracies cannot be static – they must move forward. Freedom of religion and expression lead to a strong and vibrant civil society that only strengthens the state, which is why steps like reopening the Halki Seminary will send such an important signal inside Turkey and beyond. An enduring commitment to the rule of law is the only way to achieve the security that comes from justice for all people. Robust minority rights let societies benefit from the full measure of contributions from all citizens.

I say this as the President of a country that not too long ago made it hard for someone who looks like me to vote. But it is precisely that capacity to change that enriches our countries. Every challenge that we face is more easily met if we tend to our own democratic foundation. This work is never over. That is why, in the United States, we recently ordered the prison at Guantanamo Bay closed, and prohibited – without exception or equivocation – any use of torture.

Now that is a great speech.

The Islamic world has a long history of secularism, of higher learning, of enlightenment. This is the current the West ought to ally itself with. As elsewhere, it is under threat even in Turkey. We need to find common ground in our mutual interest in promoting democratic, open societies and human rights.

Seeking common ground with backwardness, theocracy, oppression - these further neither the interests of the West nor of the Orient.

The Turkey visit of US President Barack Obama was truely a triumph. He didn't care about being politically correct, he bravely emphasized the importance of secularism in the face of the Islamist government, yet he managed to win many hearts (http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/feedarticle/8540478) because he was always perceived as honest.

Unfortunately, Obama's visit to Cairo today is of a different nature. His words (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jun/04/barack-obama-keynote-speech-egypt) were sweet, but this speech will generally be perceived as a publicity stunt and its positive effect would be much more limited, comparing to his sincere performance in Turkey.

Egypt and Saudi Arabia were the worst choices to be made to speak to the Muslim world. Egypt, ruled by a secular dictator, no democracy, no human rights... Try to be an Islamist dissident there and get ready to be killed or imprisoned.

Saudi Arabia, ruled by a religiously fanatic dynasty, no democracy, no human rights... Try to be a democratic dissident there and get ready to be killed or imprisoned.

Obama should answer two questions: Would the White House act the same way if the Saudis were not heavily investing in the Wall Street? And what about if Cairo suddenly stop being an "ally" of the US and act independenly -or in the same line with Iran?

Bottomline: George W. Bush would have visited Egypt and Saudi Arabia for a "new beginning" but Obama -as we know him- shouldn't have done it. If you still want to speak there, you should have at least cautiously criticized these anti-democratic regimes. That could be change.

http://istanbulian.blogspot.com/2009/06/disappointment-at-wrong-place.html

Full speech in video and transcript:
http://enduringamerica.com/2009/04/06/video-obama-speech-in-turkey/

Adrian II

06-09-2009, 18:52

Impressive speech. Right up there with the greatest. I kinda agree with Louis but there's a time and a place for everything, and right now we need more of this.Quite right. If you want to settle disputes, you should talk. And if you want to talk, you shouldn't offend your hosts by enumerating everything that's wrong with them. You should take the high road and point out on wat issues or values parties should agree instead of where they should part. Obama spoke like a president of the entire world there. Of course, someone in this thread is bound to ask where his deeds are. Well, for the time being Obama is mostly undoing some major mistakes of his predecessors. I can't tell you how relieved I am that 'we' have a brain in the White House again.

Incongruous

06-09-2009, 19:15

Speaking of self righteousness.....

Go on, I'm interested as to how I compare against a man who has written two books about himself and uses rhetoric which would make Churchill blush.

So speaking about the same old stuff, Obama is just as hawkish as Bush, the difference being he and his admin. are not a bunch of cretins. So when will he be giving the oil back to Iraq?

Vladimir

06-09-2009, 20:19

Quite right. If you want to settle disputes, you should talk. And if you want to talk, you shouldn't offend your hosts by enumerating everything that's wrong with them. You should take the high road and point out on wat issues or values parties should agree instead of where they should part. Obama spoke like a president of the entire world there. Of course, someone in this thread is bound to ask where his deeds are. Well, for the time being Obama is mostly undoing some major mistakes of his predecessors. I can't tell you how relieved I am that 'we' have a brain in the White House again.

In order to avoid Godwin I'll only ask one question: What about unconditional surrender don't you understand?

The we have a brain comment is a bit weak too. Predecessors, plural? Other than changing perceptions, what has he done? What did Kennedy do?

OK, that was three.

Adrian II

06-09-2009, 20:39

In order to avoid Godwin I'll only ask one question: What about unconditional surrender don't you understand?I know a bad loser when I see one. Munich talk, Manchurianitis, whateveritis. I don't read half the posts that are written in this vein.

Vladimir

06-09-2009, 21:14

OK, last time I try to intellectually bait Adrian.

Me, a bad looser? There's no need for conflict. We can reason this out. :insertmanfunctioningsmilie: Perhaps if you actually saw me you would think differently.

But really, other than a great sounding and thoroughly prepared speech, what has he done? It's been less than a year and the majority of what he did is to place the US in a weaker position. Your comment about "predecessors" is correct if you're referring to the sub-prime mortgage bubble. Several administrations passed who were aware of the danger but did nothing out of fear of short term results. Instead of moving forward and carving his own path he is allowing his predecessor to define his actions.

Financially the US more beholden to foreign debtors. Yes this makes them more interested our continued survival but also increases their influence. His world-wide apology tour (topped off with that clumsy bow to, as some could say, an Arab version of W) did a lot to make the masses pee themselves with glee but ultimately reduced international prestige. See how much influence he has if his popularity plummets. Fireside chats only do so much.

What has this speech done? It's made a lot of people feel good for a while. We'll see what actions he takes to determine if they mean anything. He spoke quite differently as a candidate than he acts as a president.

Alexander the Pretty Good

06-09-2009, 23:57

as my AmCon article pointed out, his speech will placate a few without making us do anything at all.

Incongruous

06-10-2009, 05:06

seireikhaan

06-10-2009, 06:15

Go on, I'm interested as to how I compare against a man who has written two books about himself and uses rhetoric which would make Churchill blush.
Perhaps if you didn't come charging into the backroom with such a confrontational attitude you would have realized I was not making any comparison between you and the President. I was merely pointing out the hypocrisy of complaining about someone speaking in a self righteous manner while moaning about the US murdering in wars. You speak as though you have some sort of moral authority. I cannot even discern where your position actually is- aside from the Israli's not existing anymore. You continually drip venom towards those you disagree with, so much so that i frankly find it both disturbing and irritating, which makes your proclamations of the Evil West(tm) all the more hypocritical.

Obama and his Democrats will make the U.S far more powerful that any retarded neo-con could, he is intelligent like Clinton, like that president's admin. Obama's will conceal the dirty deeds of U.S foreign policy and enable him to placate many of the critics and Muslims who may feel like tools of American power. He won't of course change any of the dynamics of U.S hegemony, he'll just make it "smart" again. If U.S hegemony floats your boat then you should be very happy with Obama.
Yeap, Obama is extending the terrible wrath of US hegemony. Obviously we must doing a real impressive job to outdo the Brits on Empire-based kill totals. Or Napoleon, or the Spaniards. Yeah, I'm glad we can outkill all the other ameteur hegemons of history.

Incongruous

06-10-2009, 09:43

Perhaps if you didn't come charging into the backroom with such a confrontational attitude you would have realized I was not making any comparison between you and the President. I was merely pointing out the hypocrisy of complaining about someone speaking in a self righteous manner while moaning about the US murdering in wars. You speak as though you have some sort of moral authority. I cannot even discern where your position actually is- aside from the Israli's not existing anymore. You continually drip venom towards those you disagree with, so much so that i frankly find it both disturbing and irritating, which makes your proclamations of the Evil West(tm) all the more hypocritical.

Personal attack aside, my grounds for calling it murder are legal and factual. I'm not going to posture upon morals, but I will use the rule of law to posture. Self righteousness is destroying a country by helping to fund a brutal civil war, getting in bed with a string of disgusting authoritarian regimes, then, when you finally get a taste of what its really like, you dare to use a terrorist attack as a reason to barge into Afghanistan and start to bomb the crap out of a country your money and secret service has already ruined.

I do not drip venom, I post my views and in the case of Afghanistan I have supported them with facts.

My views on Israel, do not equate to mass murder or any type of violence towards someone just becasue of who they were born. I despise Israel becasue that kind of hatred is what I am opposed to, I don't care what you think of me for it.

Yeap, Obama is extending the terrible wrath of US hegemony. Obviously we must doing a real impressive job to outdo the Brits on Empire-based kill totals. Or Napoleon, or the Spaniards. Yeah, I'm glad we can outkill all the other ameteur hegemons of history.

Yes he is, "outdo", you seem to believe that I want to compare my colonial phalus with yours...

Let me tell you, that my nation's continued use of brutality and murder to get what it "wants" disgusts me and I despise any Briton who agrees with those policies.

Now, if you want to do something other than mock or insult me, why not pop over to the Afghanistan thread and dispute the facts? I'd be willing.

seireikhaan

06-10-2009, 10:27

Personal attack aside, my grounds for calling it murder are legal and factual. I'm not going to posture upon morals, but I will use the rule of law to posture. Self righteousness is destroying a country by helping to fund a brutal civil war, getting in bed with a string of disgusting authoritarian regimes, then, when you finally get a taste of what its really like, you dare to use a terrorist attack as a reason to barge into Afghanistan and start to bomb the crap out of a country your money and secret service has already ruined.
Ok, let's get a few points in order. First of all, I didn't attack you. I responded to the continued vitriol and lack of continuity which emanates from your posts. You dismiss the death of thousands on 9/11, as though they did not matter, yet you rage against the death of Palestians. That is hypocrisy, at least if you claim to believe every life is equally important.

I do not drip venom, I post my views and in the case of Afghanistan I have supported them with facts.
You call the President a joke, a snake, and a murderer. You assume that 9/11 was nothing more than pretext, as though those lives were not important. You insert yourself into the mind of people you do not know, and assume the worst.

My views on Israel, do not equate to mass murder or any type of violence towards someone just becasue of who they were born. I despise Israel becasue that kind of hatred is what I am opposed to, I don't care what you think of me for it.
First of all, hatred is itself a terrible thing to allow oneself to succumb to. To despise is to lose any impartiality. You despise Israeli's for "hatred', as though all Israeli's can be nicely summed into a neat category. Guess what? Its awfully easy for plenty of Israeli's, a number of whom have committed no crime other than being born in in the "wrong place" so to speak, to hide in shelters in their basement from continued rocket attacks and think "those Palestinians, they must all be evil, I have done nothing wrong to them and yet I must seek shelter from their rockets."
Second, you again are being hypocritical. You want the Israel to drop its weapons, and yet when Obama speaks to the Palistinians about themselves disarming, you deride it as "bollox". That, again, is hypocrisy. Not a personal attack, not slander. That is what you have stated.

Yes he is, "outdo", you seem to believe that I want to compare my colonial phalus with yours...
Unfortunately, there are no smilies. I rather assumed it was obvious I was being sarcastic, and you seem to have misinterpreted my intention of the statement. It was not nice of you to insinuate, however, that I was measuring the US' penis against the UK's. Again, a bit hypocritical given you yourself complained of personal attacks.

Let me tell you, that my nation's continued use of brutality and murder to get what it "wants" disgusts me and I despise any Briton who agrees with those policies.
The intention of the statement was not moral equivelence or anything of the like. No, my intention was this; That US hegemony has, for a much larger percentage of the world's population, been much more beneficial than that of previous global hegemons. Previous hegemons literally comitted genocide at times, different times, yes, but the actions still speak for themselves. Compared to most hegemons, the US has been fairly benevolant for those that peacefully cooperate. It has been under US hegomony(post WW2, post Bretton Woods) that freedom of movement has exploded, that free trade has enabled greater cultural diffusion than ever before, that more people have been lifted out of poverty, that more technological advances in medicine, agriculture, and communication have been made. No previous hegemon has contributed as much to global prosperity than the US- Not Victorian Britain, not Napoleonic France, not the Ottoman Empire, not the Ming Dynasty, not Renaissance Spain.

Louis VI the Fat

06-10-2009, 11:25

OK, last time I try to intellectually bait Adrian.You're even more rubbish at it than I. https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/images/icons/icon10.gif

Seamus Fermanagh

06-10-2009, 13:28

I am torn between liking the speech, as did most of the early posters in this thread, and disliking it for the reasons leveled by Louis.

President Obama's previous political associations and votes seem to indicate a modest preference for the Palestinian viewpoint in the Palestinian-Israeli dispute. He will be supportive of Palestinian efforts and somewhat more likely to chastise Israel than the Bush admins -- more along the line of the Clinton adminstration (which has been demonstrated, at least with known public statements to date). Political support for Israel in key segments of the US electorate make it impractical for him to take an anti-Israeli stance, even if that is his preferred point of view (an unknown).

Obama's call for restraint and appeal to the angels of our better nature (interestingly, the concept of angels is part and parcel of all three of the faith systems involved) is a good one -- and he isn't really preferencing Israel despite our ties to them -- but I truly wonder if the audience heard him and how many are ready to make that kind of future happen. If those living there do not wish for/work for such a future, then no exterior force can impose it.

Default:

You keep looking for a future in which the US will repudiate many of its actions over the last half century or more; publicly state that we are no better than the next group of self-interested thugs; cease our unilateral support for any regime that does not clearly support/stand for human rights for all; and back away from any leadership role in international affairs and simply support -- as an equal voice -- the international groups of which we are members.

Guess what? It isn't going to happen that way. Someday our power may wane and history will force us to accept such a role -- it has happened before to many. Short of that, find a group of nations willing to stop us with the political will to bleed to make that stoppage happen or we will go on doing what we think is best for us and for the world -- that's what states do. All-in-all, I think the US record is somewhat less exploitative and very much less tyrannical than the records of other great powers, so you might find it difficult to gin up such an opposition.

Louis VI the Fat

06-10-2009, 13:43

Obama's call for restraint and appeal to the angels of our better nature (interestingly, the concept of angels is part and parcel of all three of the faith systems involved) is a good oneWorld Peace?

https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/images/icons/icon10.gif Yes oui ken! https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/images/icons/icon10.gif

It's multilingual pun day!!

yes = yes in English
oui = yes in French
ken = yes in Hebrew

In English, yes oui ken is pronounced as 'yes, we can!'

KukriKhan

06-10-2009, 15:06

Yes oui ken!

A triple sowcow (Salchow)

https://jimcee.homestead.com/nobelllogo-160.gif

Gaius Scribonius Curio

06-11-2009, 05:37

With regards to the speech, I believe that it was the right speech for the right situation. While I acknowledge Louis' comments, I feel a concilatory form of address was right for the situation. The earlier speech in Turkey, was, in my opinion, the right choice there. In the position of President, no matter what you do you will be criticised. Its been reported that some Israelis are extremely disappointed, and many Americans are critical of the (constructive) criticism of Israel. That said were he to go hard on Hamas, then his audience in Cairo, and the wider audience of the Middle East would then have reacted poorly.

Honestly I admire his tact. There is a time and a place for straight talking, but in this case I think Obama has got it right.

Incongruous

06-11-2009, 07:18

Ok, let's get a few points in order. First of all, I didn't attack you. I responded to the continued vitriol and lack of continuity which emanates from your posts. You dismiss the death of thousands on 9/11, as though they did not matter, yet you rage against the death of Palestians. That is hypocrisy, at least if you claim to believe every life is equally important.

Uhuh, nice of you to fabricate the views of your oponents...
So, back to what I am really saying, the U.S had largely dismissed the deaths of many thousands of Afghans by claiming that the war there is a just war (yeah right).

So, it was hypocrisy was it? No, what it was was me having a strong view point which conflicts with yours.

You call the President a joke, a snake, and a murderer. You assume that 9/11 was nothing more than pretext, as though those lives were not important. You insert yourself into the mind of people you do not know, and assume the worst.

Sorry, if I did call him a snale I apologise, I don't remember it, perhaps you could point me to the post...

A joke, well yes to me he is a joke, a really foul one which is being played on peoples like the Afghans.

A murderer, well yes he is, he is now head of an administration which has murdered civilians, pretty soon he will have overseen the murder of far more people than Bin Laden. Perspective is a great thing, you should read up on how many civlians died in that country due to U.S money and support, oh and it was the U.S which supported the first Ilsmaic regime in Afghanistan and allowed those abuses of "liberty" and "freedom".

First of all, hatred is itself a terrible thing to allow oneself to succumb to. To despise is to lose any impartiality. You despise Israeli's for "hatred', as though all Israeli's can be nicely summed into a neat category. Guess what? Its awfully easy for plenty of Israeli's, a number of whom have committed no crime other than being born in in the "wrong place" so to speak, to hide in shelters in their basement from continued rocket attacks and think "those Palestinians, they must all be evil, I have done nothing wrong to them and yet I must seek shelter from their rockets."
Second, you again are being hypocritical. You want the Israel to drop its weapons, and yet when Obama speaks to the Palistinians about themselves disarming, you deride it as "bollox". That, again, is hypocrisy. Not a personal attack, not slander. That is what you have stated.

Nice opening sentence. Despise, sorry, what else are you meant to view the Isreali occupation as? Ever heard of the Plans D? No? Well why don't you go and have a look at them.

Isreal and America's attempts at "peace" have all been bollox, one sided affairs whereby the lackey of a Superpower gets it easy while the opressed natives get stuff all. Yeah, so I am sorry if I write off Obama's talk of peace as a re-run of Camp David.

Yeap, Obama is extending the terrible wrath of US hegemony. Obviously we must doing a real impressive job to outdo the Brits on Empire-based kill totals. Or Napoleon, or the Spaniards. Yeah, I'm glad we can outkill all the other ameteur hegemons of history.

Sounded like you were taking the piss.

The intention of the statement was not moral equivelence or anything of the like. No, my intention was this; That US hegemony has, for a much larger percentage of the world's population, been much more beneficial than that of previous global hegemons. Previous hegemons literally comitted genocide at times, different times, yes, but the actions still speak for themselves. Compared to most hegemons, the US has been fairly benevolant for those that peacefully cooperate. It has been under US hegomony(post WW2, post Bretton Woods) that freedom of movement has exploded, that free trade has enabled greater cultural diffusion than ever before, that more people have been lifted out of poverty, that more technological advances in medicine, agriculture, and communication have been made. No previous hegemon has contributed as much to global prosperity than the US- Not Victorian Britain, not Napoleonic France, not the Ottoman Empire, not the Ming Dynasty, not Renaissance Spain.

Yes actions do speak for themselves, do you even know what your country has done over the past fifty years, under the guise of groups like the World Bank?

Good god, the U.S has been as rapacious as any Hegemon in history, don't fall for the benevolent giant bollox, the U.S has actively tried to screw over most of the Third World.

You keep looking for a future in which the US will repudiate many of its actions over the last half century or more; publicly state that we are no better than the next group of self-interested thugs; cease our unilateral support for any regime that does not clearly support/stand for human rights for all; and back away from any leadership role in international affairs and simply support -- as an equal voice -- the international groups of which we are members.

No I don't, I have views which lead me to believe that yours are generally wrong, so we have arguments, that is all.

Guess what? It isn't going to happen that way. Someday our power may wane and history will force us to accept such a role -- it has happened before to many. Short of that, find a group of nations willing to stop us with the political will to bleed to make that stoppage happen or we will go on doing what we think is best for us and for the world -- that's what states do. All-in-all, I think the US record is somewhat less exploitative and very much less tyrannical than the records of other great powers, so you might find it difficult to gin up such an opposition

That is why I dislike Hegemons and Imperial powers.
I think the U.S record is just as blood stained as any others, I think if you read up on the "Backyard" or Saudi Arabia or Afghanistan or Iran or Iraq or Pakistan, you might grasp where I am coming from.

seireikhaan

06-11-2009, 08:31

Uhuh, nice of you to fabricate the views of your oponents...
So, back to what I am really saying, the U.S had largely dismissed the deaths of many thousands of Afghans by claiming that the war there is a just war (yeah right).
So, then, I assume that you do not see any situation in which a war is just?

So, it was hypocrisy was it? No, what it was was me having a strong view point which conflicts with yours.Nice try to paint me into a corner as the bad guy in this argument. It is hypocrisy. You claim US cassus belli in Afghanistan was bollox, despite the deaths of innocents in a beligerant attack. The US responds and only then do you rage against civiian deaths.

Sorry, if I did call him a snale I apologise, I don't remember it, perhaps you could point me to the post...

A joke, well yes to me he is a joke, a really foul one which is being played on peoples like the Afghans.

A murderer, well yes he is, he is now head of an administration which has murdered civilians, pretty soon he will have overseen the murder of far more people than Bin Laden. Perspective is a great thing, you should read up on how many civlians died in that country due to U.S money and support, oh and it was the U.S which supported the first Ilsmaic regime in Afghanistan and allowed those abuses of "liberty" and "freedom".On the first point- you call him a liar, deceiver, and murderer. Sure sounds like a snake to me.

As far as him being a joke for the Afghans- I suppose then, that it would make everything better if we picked up and left?

Murder- I don't deny that a lot of innocent people in Afghanistan have been caught in the crossfire. Its a hell hole right now. Now, tell me, why do you think civilians have died in afghanistan? Because the US is out to murder them in front of the entire rest of the world, when 40+ nations followed us in? Because we're sadistic?

Nice opening sentence. Despise, sorry, what else are you meant to view the Isreali occupation as? Ever heard of the Plans D? No? Well why don't you go and have a look at them.

Isreal and America's attempts at "peace" have all been bollox, one sided affairs whereby the lackey of a Superpower gets it easy while the opressed natives get stuff all. Yeah, so I am sorry if I write off Obama's talk of peace as a re-run of Camp David.I don't deny Isreal has all too often behaved in an exessively violent manner, nor that the US has supported them. Palestians have suffered much. That is precisely why they must lay down their arms. Peaceful resistance is the only method by which they can de-legitimize Isreal. You did not counter my point, instead attacking Israel again. I am not here to discuss history, I am here to discuss possible solutions.

And, of course, as I stated earlier, you are inserting yourself into the minds of others(Obama) and assuming you know what they are thinking.

Sounded like you were taking the piss.Pardon? "Taking the piss". Afraid I'm not familiar with that specific terminology.

Yes actions do speak for themselves, do you even know what your country has done over the past fifty years, under the guise of groups like the World Bank? "My country?" If you believe that the US runs the world bank, you are quite mistaken. Unless, of course, you can provide some kind of evidence tha supports your claim.

Good god, the U.S has been as rapacious as any Hegemon in history, don't fall for the benevolent giant bollox, the U.S has actively tried to screw over most of the Third World.Has the US "screwed over" some people? Yes. Have there been deaths under US watch? Yes. Has it been bad, awful, for some? Yes. Unfortunately, that sort of thing happens in life. There are winners, there are losers. In my view, the losers under US hegemony have been fewer and less subjugative than under the eye of other historical hegemons. Further, unlike you, I acknowledge that the US has benefitted large numbers of people around the world through economic liberalisation. You have not countered my point that more people around the world are now going through life with greater prosperity than ever before. The US, in partnership with our fellow imperialist Britain, created the GATT, bringing world tarrifs to a level shockingly close to zero(excluding agriculture). Goods, ideas, technology, and people, have never so easily spread across national boundaries. Some have benefitted more than others. Only a select few have purposefully shut themselves off from this world of free trade- Maoist China, North Korea. China suffered terribly until they finally opened up, and North Korea remains a twisted version of the Kim family's magical kingdom.

Seamus Fermanagh

06-11-2009, 13:53

Good god, the U.S has been as rapacious as any Hegemon in history, don't fall for the benevolent giant bollox, the U.S has actively tried to screw over most of the Third World.
...
That is why I dislike Hegemons and Imperial powers.
I think the U.S record is just as blood stained as any others, I think if you read up on the "Backyard" or Saudi Arabia or Afghanistan or Iran or Iraq or Pakistan, you might grasp where I am coming from.

So things would have been hunky-dory in all of those places without US action/intervention/influence? Poppycock. Trying to assign all of the responsibility to the US for suffering in those times/places isn't reasonable. I could just as easily argue that it would have been worse for the locals without our influence/efforts.

You also mis-state the case regarding the third world. Some of our efforts have misfired (the IMF and World Bank have caused a lot of pain with their reforms and economic mandates for example), but by using the term "actively" you specifically ascribe this as having been our intent.

Had we been "actively" engaging in such a policy, we would have been using food as a weapon with targeted starvation; curtailing all investment that was not specifically associated with resource extraction, and actively aiding/abetting warlordism in order to have the locals keep themselves impoverished and impotent. Instead, we send our military to die to end warlordism (hasn't always worked by any means and it hasn't been tried uniformly at all), allow our companies to invest major amounts in infrastructure development throughout the world, and try to feed people even when their own government's are the ones using the starvation weapon.

Hegemons (actually, I think Great Power is more apt) are always a part of the history. I would suggest that you look carefully at those time frames/regions when there was no dominant power or set of powers setting the framework for interaction; you'll find that everybody in all their nations and tribes were more "equal" -- in their Hobbesian existence.

Louis VI the Fat

06-11-2009, 13:58

I am torn between liking the speech, as did most of the early posters in this thread, and disliking it for the reasons leveled by Louis.So am I, so am I. https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/images/icons/icon10.gif

Part of me likes Obama's policy of Shock and Thaw. Part of me wonders exactly whom and what Obama thinks he's making amendments with.

One has to be practical. Maybe in the end, in the long run, a detente with Islam will bolster the moderates, and so help to put an end to this shameless ideology of violence, torture, rape and inane focus on Palestine.
While simultanously, outside of America (hehe), secular Muslims can be bolstered and moderate Muslims pried away from the clutches of their violent and intolerant ideology.

rotorgun

06-14-2009, 06:19

Forgive me Louis for not bringing this up earlier, as I had to catch up with the posts (some interesting arguments going on here) but can you explain this statement from President Obama's speech in Turkey?

Turkey is an important part of Europe.President Obama Hugh?:inquisitive:
I think my geography is a bit hazy at best, but Turkey isn't even on the same continent, no?

PS: That's what sometimes gets my goat. Many of his speeches are often loaded with these inaccuracies, historical or otherwise. Like the time he claimed that the Berlin airlift made it possible for his Kenyan father to come to the United States. I guess Kenya is now a part of Germany.:no: I do appreciate the tone of his rhetoric as you do of course.

Ironside

06-14-2009, 08:37

Istanbul is partially inside Europe and so is a tiny bit of the surrounding area aswell.

Anyway he's probably mainly positivly refering to that Turkey may become a member of EU, thus becoming a part of the European hemisphere.

rotorgun

06-14-2009, 15:46

Istanbul is partially inside Europe and so is a tiny bit of the surrounding area as well.

Anyway he's probably mainly positively referring to that Turkey may become a member of EU, thus becoming a part of the European hemisphere.

Oh yeah, I forgot about Istanbul, and I agree with your surmise. I have always seen Turkey as a sort of land bridge between east and west, with influences form both.

Louis VI the Fat

06-15-2009, 13:00

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/14/opinion/14friedman.html?em

Thomas Friedman wrote an intersting column. Below the abridged version:

something is going on in the Middle East today that is very new.

What we saw in the Lebanese elections, where the pro-Western March 14 movement won a surprise victory over the pro-Iranian Hezbollah coalition, what we saw in the ferment for change exposed by the election campaign in Iran, and what we saw in the provincial elections in Iraq, where the big pro-Iranian party got trounced, is the product of four historical forces that have come together to crack open this ossified region.

First is the diffusion of technology. The Internet, blogs, YouTube and text messaging via cellphones, particularly among the young

Second, for real politics to happen you need space. There are a million things to hate about President Bush’s costly and wrenching wars. But the fact is, in ousting Saddam in Iraq in 2003 and mobilizing the U.N. to push Syria out of Lebanon in 2005, he opened space for real democratic politics

Third, the Bush team opened a hole in the wall of Arab autocracy but did a poor job following through. In the vacuum, the parties most organized to seize power were the Islamists — Hezbollah in Lebanon; pro-Al Qaeda forces among Iraqi Sunnis, and the pro-Iranian Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq and Mahdi Army among Iraqi Shiites; the Taliban in Pakistan and Afghanistan; Hamas in Gaza. Fortunately, each one of these Islamist groups overplayed their hand by imposing religious lifestyles or by dragging their societies into confrontations the people didn’t want. This alienated and frightened more secular, mainstream Arabs and Muslims and has triggered an “awakening” backlash among moderates from Lebanon to Pakistan to Iran. The Times’s Robert Mackey reported that in Tehran “chants of ‘Death to America’ ” at rallies for Mahmoud Ahmadinejad last week were answered by chants of “Death to the Taliban — in Kabul and Tehran” at a rally for his opponent, Mir Hussein Moussavi.

Finally, along came President Barack Hussein Obama. Arab and Muslim regimes found it very useful to run against George Bush. The Bush team demonized them, and they demonized the Bush team. Autocratic regimes, like Iran’s, drew energy and legitimacy from that confrontation, and it made it very easy for them to discredit anyone associated with America. Mr. Obama’s soft power has defused a lot of that. As result, “pro-American” is not such an insult anymore.

I don’t know how all this shakes out; the forces against change in this region are very powerful — see Iran — and ruthless. But for the first time in a long time, the forces for decency, democracy and pluralism have a little wind at their backs. Good for them. 'Bush' as a necessary historical step. A kind of Ronald Reagan - despised for his warmongering attitude, yet appreciated by history for being a hammer of historical progress. Could Bush' legacy improve, could he be remembered for forging democratic chance? For all of Bush' lunacy, for his disastrous, even despicable policies, I say the verdict is not yet in...

~~-~~-~~<<o0o>>~~-~~-~~

Turkey is an important part of Europe. President Obama.There is a fiercely contested, long running debate in Europe about a possible Turkish membership of the EU.

Obama's statement above is a deliberate political statement. Not particularly new or shocking. For geostrategical reasons, it has long been the US's preference to see a Turkish EU membership.
I myself oppose Turkish membership. Obama's flirt with the Turks was not received well by those who oppose membership.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article6041404.ece

Ah, the sweet irony of history: five years ago, Chirac, rather: France and Germany, were in favour of a Turkey membership, and chastened America for anti-Islamic interventionism. Currently, Sarkozy and Merkel are very outspoken opponents of a Turkish membership, and chastize America for it's pro-Islamic interventionism. :laugh4: