Obama's speech at the univ of Cairo

[Adrian II]

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.

[Vladimir]

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]

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]

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]

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

[Incongruous]

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.

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.

[Louis VI the Fat]

OK, last time I try to intellectually bait Adrian.

You're even more rubbish at it than I.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

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]

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

World Peace?

Yes oui ken!

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!'

[Louis VI the Fat]

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.

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]

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?
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. I do appreciate the tone of his rhetoric as you do of course.

[Ironside]

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]

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]

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/14/op...iedman.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/new...cle6041404.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.