Obama's speech at the univ of Cairo

[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!'

[KukriKhan]

Yes oui ken!

A triple sowcow (Salchow)

[Gaius Scribonius Curio]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.