Obama's speech at the univ of Cairo

**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 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.

**seireikhaan** · 06-09-2009, 09:11

Originally Posted by Default the Magyar

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.

**Adrian II** · 06-09-2009, 18:52

Originally Posted by Fragony

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** · 06-09-2009, 20:19

Originally Posted by Adrian II

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

Originally Posted by Vladimir

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.

**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?

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** · 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

Originally Posted by Ironside

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/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>>~~-~~-~~

Originally Posted by rotorgun

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.

**Incongruous** · 06-09-2009, 19:15

Originally Posted by Shinseikhaan

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?

**seireikhaan** · 06-10-2009, 06:15

Originally Posted by Default the Magyar

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

Originally Posted by Default the Magyar

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** · 06-09-2009, 13:09

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

Spoiler Alert, click show to read:

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.

Originally Posted by Turkish blogger

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 because he was always perceived as honest.

Unfortunately, Obama's visit to Cairo today is of a different nature. His words 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.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: