Obama's Cairo Speech


What did you think of Obama's speech in Cairo? What kind of change will, or won't, it bring?

Posted by Lauren Keane on June 8, 2009 1:25 PM

Readers’ Responses to Our Question (62)

TomW2 Author Profile Page :

Bob

"... am curious to find out how Salamon stating historical fact is, "anti-American and a cheap shot."..."

Because, Bob, that is exactly why he stated it. He didn’t state it because he suddenly cares about the American Indian. He could care less. He didn’t state it because he is a human rights activist. He isn’t. He didn’t state it because he thinks I’m not aware of the history of the US. He knows I am. He didn’t state it because there is some kind of relevancy to the question of PostGlobal. There isn’t. He didn’t state it because there is some kind of relevancy to the I/P conflict. There’s none. He didn't state it because there was some relevancy to any discussion we were having. It just came out of the blue (go read it). He didn’t state it because he is willing to give up the land that he’s living on in Canada that happens to be native American land. He won’t. He didn’t state it for any other reason than he is a US obsessed, anti American who I‘m not sure has ever given an opinion on this site without some negative reference to the US.. It was an intended classic cheap shot for which he is well known.

“ am aware of the History of Hungary, do not need lectures.” June 11, 10:06 AM

Did you even notice that he didn’t want me to discuss the history of Hungary - his home country? Why not? Oh, he’s already aware of Hungary’s history - so I should just drop the subject - as if I‘m not aware of US history. He didn’t want to hear me tell him that his home country was a Nazi state and beholden to Hitler, and sent 437,000 Jews to German death camps - which, by the way, is relevant to the I/P conflict. In fact, Bob, why didn’t you question why he wasn’t interested in his own history? They were a Nazi state. Plain and simple. Suddenly, he is not interested in history. Thus to Salamon, history is irrelevant unless it pertains to the US (and Israel) - and what he perceives as bad US policy. Any bad policy concerning his own country is of no interest to Salamon - even if its relevant to the discussion. He’s also not interested in history where there has been good US policy. Of course, to Salamon, there hasn’t been any. He is only interested in history if he disagrees with the US - which is always.

“…We have lost the War in all major theatres since WWII {which was won after USSR destroyed the German Army on the East Front]…”

Do you think that this comment has any relevance other than just a cheap shot at the US (his own comment inserted is the one that I'm referencing)?

If you can’t see what I’m saying then you’re more hopeless than he is. Hope that helps, Bob. And thanks for the history lesson, Bob. Guess what, what does that have to do with anything?

farklol Author Profile Page :

Daniel:

Thank you for your reply, I have a clearer picture of what you are trying to say. I think in the end you are trying to be an advocate of genetic engineering.

My issue with genetic engineering is this: you mention that you believe genetic engineering will bring true equality to this world. The problem is, it doesn't. For genetic engineering to be applied it takes a high level of technical knowledge and resources, which only wealthy industrialized nations have. And it's not everyone that have access to it, only those better off. Commercialized genetic engineering, if existed, would be no different than cosmetic surgery today: expensive procedures that are only available for those who can afford it. That means while the affluent make themselves smarter and prettier and perform better in society, while the rest of us are out of luck. And before you know it, the disparaties become WIDER.

And I didn't even mention those poor saps who live in 3rd world nations (where they don't even have clean water let alone multi-billion dollar genetics labs), those people would have even a LESS of a chance than before. Just think of all the inequalities that exist, and compound that by genetic ability, a permanent genetic underclass. Genetic haves and have-nots. Eloi and Morlocks.

How is that humane?

daniel12 Author Profile Page :

To Farklol from Daniel. Good post. And the truth is exactly as I said--we should try for some humane solution.--And I admit that I did not post a humane solution because I am not sure how to proceed. But I suspect the answer will come from the genetic sciences, that slowly but surely through an understanding of genetics people if not becoming exactly alike (and in fact that is both impossible and undesirable) will become close enough alike genetically so that no race or ethnic group is falling behind the others and all peoples are well represented and breeding with each other. Right now there are shocking disparities (genetically) between people both within societies and between societies (between some societies) and we paper over that fact by saying all people deserve to be treated equally, that life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness is a right for everyone. We console ourselves with all our noble feelings. But disparities go on all the same, all too many are left behind in school, etc. In short, genetic differences between people exist and we delude ourselves that our good intentions, our morality is solving the problem. But it is not. A good simple example is that in school all the boys want to sleep with the hottest chicks, but the hottest chicks often hold out because they think they can do better than the boys available. And the typical boy--for all his nobility, all his saying all people should be treated equally--never asks out on a date one of the ugliest girls in the school. Tell me, where is the happiness for the ugliest girls? The point is all our attempts at being ethical with the current genetic disparities is a piece of hypocrisy. To truly arrive at an ethical solution I suspect will take the genetic sciences, methods that will leave no one dreadfully ugly or dreadfully stupid--methods which really do give every person life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Of course heading toward the genetic sciences is fraught with peril, but it seems to me the direction must be faced because all our ethical understanding so far does not get at genetic differences between people--does not make up for stark and painful genetic differences. So we must head for the genetic sciences with care. And hopefully in being careful we will find the answer to genetic disparities and truly work a wonder of ethics by having every child with a true fighting chance in this world. Hope that answers your question somewhat. I will be working on this some more, make it clearer,--which is to say pose a clear question with respect to this problem and answer the question in the form of a short essay (as I often do). Thanks for the conversation, and again, good post.

yeolds Author Profile Page :

TOM:
you missed connecting the dots of USA's history with the present interior and exterior manifestation of the respective policies: subjugating others to on'e will, beating up on others to assert one's desire for their goods [or lands or what else] without any loss in a serious manner, invigorated a psychological change to A CERTAINITY that we are right, that we can do anything which is in our perceived [momentarily] interest, that we are exceptional. The different doctorines [Monroe, Clinton,. etc] are reflectionon this psychological state, WE ARE THE CHOSEN. Bush expressed this in another way during the run up to his WAR CRIMES [invasion of IRaq] you are with us or aqgainst us. With us means that you subjugate your nation's future to our desires, wants, etc, being against us, we call you terrorist. You foreign entity do not have a right to national interest [you, Tom, often expressed the view that the USA has over-riding interest in IRAQ, while the Iraqis fighting against your occupation were terrorist, did not have interst of Iraq in mind, etc]

This world view is especially poingnant with respect to I/P problem. for we, the anti-semetic nation, with the help of another anti-semetic nation, the UK, did manage through pressures on the weak members of UN to give the land [which was not ours] to the Jews as a homeland, with the agreement that anyone who claims to be a Jew can settle therein. That the natives had to be abused, sent into servitude, death and dispossession was of no significance, for this is the way the USA operated since her inception - WE THE CHOSEN EXCEPTIONAL ARROGANT PEOPLE decided that the JEWS were for US [hopefully far away - soince then there is less anti-semitism - though a rise in anti-Zionism] and the Arabs, Palestinians, IRanians, Somalians, Egyptians only count if they officially lick our boots,

You no doubt recall numerous statements of your political and economic elite indicating numerous times that the present problems of economics is someone else's fault, they saved excessively -THE SAVING INBALANCE between the Far East and USA, notwithstanding that after the Asian Financial crisis, the Washington Concessus demanded that they save - after, of course, that we raped their economy to save our banks.

So wake up Tom: without change in psychology of the nation, your future looks dim, as does the future of Israel - if either or both act in morally [or ethically] despicable waqys in the xxi-st century of multinational power structures.

blund Author Profile Page :

Tom,

I am curious to find out how Salamon stating historical fact is, "anti-American and a cheap shot." Both slavery and genocide against the American Indians are just historical facts. They may not be convienent historical facts, but they are still reality that will never go away. While they are not the two defining issues that brought us to where we are today they certainly are two of the many defining issues. Hence, I fail to see how reciting these facts can be either anti-American or cheap.

Our forefathers had a vision. This vision in the 1800's was rooted in Manifest Destiny. Under this doctrine it was quite acceptable for White European settlers in this country to actively spread the boundries of the US at the expense of both the American Indians and the Spanish/Mexicans. Were such a policy even suggested today it would be torn apart for being a racist elitist policy that would have deadly consequences. However, we're not talking about today. We're talking about 150 years ago where we could get away with it. That's just basic history 101.

farklol Author Profile Page :

To Daniel:

You argue that disparaties exist in race and intelligence due to genetics. That in itself I do not find any problems with. However, in the same paragraph you bemoan the fact that everyone here is presenting arguments and not solutions, you present your only solution that hopefully someday a "humane world order" will arrive to solve all our problems.

So imagine me, after reading all those paragraphs of rhetoric, I find one sentence of wishy-washiness that maybe someone will come up with a pretty and ethical solution to an ugly and unethical truth.

Tell me, Daniel, what is this "humane" solution that you speak of? Voluntary sterilization? Government-funded abortion clinics on every street corner with a crack-house? Find a spirit medium to channel Sir Francis Galton?

TomW2 Author Profile Page :

Daniel

Excellent post. Well thought out, and much better than I could have written on these subjects. Frankly, its a little tiring posting the same arguments against the same people week after week.

On the other side of that, I've learned a great deal from this site - and from the people that post here. The key is to try to post original ideas, but that's a difficult task. Keep up the good work.

TomW2 Author Profile Page :

Bob

Thanks for the discussion.

TomW2 Author Profile Page :

Salamon

Somehow, you’ve managed to twist this whole discussion.

First of all, the genocide of the Indians had absolutely nothing to do with the I/P conflict. As I said before, it was just a cheap shot, anti American comment, that’s all. Nothing more, nothing less. On the other hand, you said Hungarian history had nothing to do with the I/P conflict, however, the Hungarian government deported 437,000 Jews to Auschwitz-Birkenau - and if that has nothing to do with the I/P conflict, I’ll fly up to Canada and kiss your ass. In fact, Hungary was in the thick of the Holocaust. Many Arabs believe that the state of Israel was created out of sympathy for the Holocaust victims.

The rest of your post supports your view of the US which you’ve been spouting for two long years. - a completely distorted, and one-sided view of history (no matter if you are the writer or you are quoting someone else). How you view history is entirely up to you, Salamon. One comment however on Iraq.

From Thomas Friedman (center-left columnist), New York Times, June 14, 2009 (“Winds of Change”):

“…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 that had not existed in Iraq or Lebanon for decades. “Bush had a simple idea, that the Arabs could be democratic, and at that particular moment simple ideas were what was needed, even if he was disingenuous,” said Michael Young, the opinion editor of The Beirut Daily Star. “It was bolstered by the presence of a U.S. Army in the center of the Middle East. It created a sense that change was possible, that things did not always have to be as they were.”…”

The usual liberal disclaimer for a Bush policy followed by the positive developments in the Middle East because of the policy.

Rami Khouri, a strong critic of US policy in the Middle East, writes in the Daily Star (Lebanon), Feb. 4, 2009 (“Three demons plague the Arab world”):

“…This situation [Arab countries] can only change through homegrown evolution into more democratic, pluralistic governance systems, working with likeminded partners worldwide. Foreign armies cannot do the job for us. Iraq's transformation remains a fascinating ongoing process whose ultimate outcome remains to be seen. It was probably a one-time phenomenon that reflected a unique post-9/11 moment in America that will not be repeated (and should not be)…”

There is recognition of positive change in the Middle East directly attributable to the policies of George Bush. The invasion of Iraq could be the catalyst for democratic change in the ME, and if that’s the case, only left wing historians could view the Bush years as a failure. In other words, its premature to suggest that we lost in Iraq - and Afghanistan as well. Dang, sorry to disappoint you, Salamon.

daniel12 Author Profile Page :

It seems not much has changed here. One thing I notice about people here: no matter how logical one is, no matter the novelty and enlightenment of view, the next week will be exactly the same--no one learning a damn thing.

We have Salamon the same as always--not a thing changes month after month. The big delusion of Salamon: he seems to think reining in the U.S. will lead to some sort of world peace--as if everyone in the world is on the same civilized level and if the U.S. just tames itself the rest of the world will rise up and be models of democracy or something--or demonstrate a form of government equal to or superior to the U.S. I have asked Salamon what exactly is this path to world peace he has in mind, but he has never given anything. What he prefers to do is insult the U.S. as if we Americans are pleased about the sad condition of the world, as if we are happy about fighting here and there around the world, as if there is no reason for the U.S. to fight at all and that in fact the U.S. starts the fights and everyone else just wants peace and can teach the U.S. about peace or something. In general the left wing method is to just make a person feel ashamed--especially if one is white and American.

And it seems one of the most enduring arguments against the U.S. is that it is racist and genocidal--and people never stop pointing out that the sorry state of blacks, Latinos and native Americans is ongoing proof of racism. Especially does it seem white people are supposed to have some sort of genetic defect which makes them go berserk when they see black skin. Well I have news for all the good leftists: no matter how racist the whites are supposed to be, no matter how privileged and in control of all the wealth which should go into more schooling, a strange phenomenon has been occurring--namely that no matter how poor Indian (from India); Vietnamese; Chinese; Asian immigrants in general (although there are exceptions, certain tribes of Asians), are in America, no matter the schools, they not only do good in school they often do better than whites and they have no problem getting good jobs. Notice that the Indian students often have skin as black as the blacks--yet the Indian students often do better than the whites, and go on to higher education and good jobs.

Quite simply the left can keep on beating the affirmative action drum, can keep speaking about all those dead white men not to mention the evil live ones, can keep believing smiling at the enemy overseas will pacify the enemy (although of course there are no smiles for the republicans--apparently the smile method works on America's enemies but not the republicans at home)--but the tide is turning in an unexpected direction: While Indians (from India), Vietnamese, Chinese--all those model minorities--are left wing now, eventually precisely because they so often do extremely well in America they will become more right wing--or at least right with respect to the left because if the whites are being slammed for racism it will be only a matter of time before they are blamed too, because they of course will be doing as well, if not better, than the whites.

The left had better get itself in order, because although it seems people are turning away from the right the right has inertia on its side, what has been proven to work. And the fact is what we have before us is the ongoing struggle to make the world democratic, and unfortunately it seems the U.S., Asia and Europe are doing best, and that it might prove harder than expected to elevate the entire world to a free state because some peoples will lag behind no matter the schooling, no matter the opportunities. Whites, Asians in general, Jews, do well. Muslims, blacks, Latinos, and virtually all those obscure tribes here and there (whether of the rain forest or the native American reservation or other place) do less well. The question really comes down to how in the hell we can arrive at some sort of humane world order as all these uncomfortable facts come to light with more pressure every day. But apparently the left just believes in more of its same medicine, and I should say for sake of the left the right also goes on its stupid course with religion and more religion, greedy economic practices, etc. I might be wrong about everything, but one thing I do know: If a person shows no evidence of change he is lost--simple as that. The times that we are in demand that a person change--there is no safe point of view, no easy government, etc. Figure it out people, it seems the arguments are outweighing the solutions, and the more they outweigh the solutions the more everyone thinks everything is almost solved. One would hope so.

yeolds Author Profile Page :

TOM:

That the USA was established via genocide of natives, wars of conquest against Mexico, Spain and numerous other minor powers is indeed pertinent to the I/P problem.

This history of WAR and WINNING imbued into the american psyche the notion of exeptionalism, arrogance and rightousness which carried over to the xxsi-st century. That the USSR self-immolated, was perceived in USA as Winning and led to further heights of hubris exemplified by the Horrible Bush years and certain remains thereof in the Obama months.

With respect to the hubris: WE ARE THE IDEAL DEMOCRACY [but we maintain imperial territories and conduct imperial wars}, we love democratic elections [if K-Streeet and the moneyed Elite donate sufficient funds to ensure that we the eleccted are PROPERLY PURCHASED] at home, and other places like Lebanon, where we declare the winner our friends, even though they received 45% of the vote, while the opposion got 55% of the vote. We love democracy, see ABBAS was elected [and purchased] and we stand by himn, even though his mandate expired months ago. The other election [Hammas, the clear winner] we disregard, and help to destroy by armaments [to Fatah and Israel] and enable our Democratic [apartheit supporting] friend, Israel, to jail the democratically elected Representatives. We deplore that Chavez was elected [and provide funding to oust him of office] and decry him as Dictator, when 60+% of the citizens reelect him. Similar actions ensued in Haitii, Nicaragua, Salvador etc after our bloody effort in Vietnam to support a puppet. We are surprised that we can not find a puppet in Iraq, after destroying the country's infrastructure [by an illegal invasion] and have similar problems in Afganistan.
We have lost the War in all major theatres since WWII {which was won after USSR destroyed the German Army on the East Front] in Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, Afganistan, and now try to pick a fight with IRAN, after sanctioning same country for 30 years, and financing various groups to destabilize the country. During the last 20 odd years we depended on Foreigners to finance our wars, our depression of the poor, and to create a nightmare economic scenario for ourselves and for the world.

As the above history shows, the very establishment of the USA sowed the seeds of the present action in the P/I conflict, which would have been over 50-60 years ago but for Anglo-Saxon support [wherein the USA was ruled by the reamins of mostly Anglo-Saxon elite], the USA and UK.

It was the Anglo-Saxon leadership in Canada which was the bane of natives. The French often internmarried [see the number of Metis resulting from such unions].

There are two possible outcomes from the I/P conflict, which I cited before. There are two possible outcomes from the present state of the USA: getting rid of hubris, exceptionalism, rightousness and arrogance and play international and national politics in a moral ethical manner, or face collapse due to misinvestment in wars, at the expense of preparing the nation for decline in cheap energy and rising temperature in the whole world.

blund Author Profile Page :

Tom,

I think you need to write a book on Obama being a racist. How his philosophy has been shaped by Rev. Wright. How going Ivy League was just a ruse to deceive people about his real feelings. You might even get about one out of 5 people in this country to agree with you. However, the other 80% will be wondering if Rush is sharing his Oxycontin with you.

I especially liked your, "I would be remarkably naïve to believe, however, that Democrats will not use race as a wedge issue in the future." I wouldn' want you to be naive so you just keep preaching this line. Of course there are reasons Blacks, Hispanics, Jews, Women and everyday workers flock to the democratic party. This must be because they are just dumb. I don't know how they couldn't trust the R's to advance their best interests. Oh, maybe that could be the R's aren't the party for the minorities and disadvantaged people along with workers. Did you see the last R convention? Did anything strike you as odd? Could it have been camera crews had to go out of their way to find a minority to interview. I haven't seen that man white males in one place at one time since the previous R convention. Do you see the problem here?

All of these groups really need to see the light and trust the R's to do what's in their best interest. After all. the R's have a long history of social issues directed at them. That's right, only they have directed the wrong way.

So you just keep up using Obama in the same sentences with Marx, Khameni, socialists, Ayers, Wright, etc. etc., and you just keep defending that pillar of intellectual endeavors (Bush). The more you do this (slandering Obamas character) and the less you deal with the real issues of the economy, immigration, social security,the economy and getting us out of 2 wars the longer your group will wander in the political wasteland. John Kerry was the last D candidate you will get away with character assassination on. Only the 20% who are too stupid to think will buy this crap anymore. Especially after one R scandal after another in the Bush years. The R's were going around slandering the D's while they were paging (pun intended) underage boys, soliciting sex in airports, selling influence and lying to grand juries. A moral record to be proud of. Now before you go off on D's having past transgressions I couldn't agree more. The difference is they were not preaching moral authority while they were doing it.

Honestly, if it has come to the point the only reason the R party exists is to tell everyone how moral they are, act the opposite and spend the rest of their time engaging in character assassination don't you think it's time to disband the party? Where's the beef Tom? Where's the meat of a platform? Where's an alternative for economic recovery? If you can't play in this arena don't get annoyed when you can't win elections. Stop being 100% negative and start producing a platform.

TomW2 Author Profile Page :

Salamon

"...To the the history of the Palestine Israel dog-fight the connection to Hungary is negligible[or nil], while that of the USA is existential. Thus to discuss the topic, the history of USA is important , while the history of Hungary is nil..."

The American Indian genocide has nothing what so ever to do with the I/P conflict, it was just another cheap shot, anti American comment - and that's exactly why you said it. What's even more baffling is that you wrote this while subsiding in Canada which used to be home to NATIVE NORTH AMERICAN INDIANS.......

TomW2 Author Profile Page :

“…Another case in point is your continued references to Obama as a racist. Earth to Tom, are you kidding me? Who is more of a racist? You or Obama? Just because Rush is hopped up on Oxycontin and slurs his diatribes against Obama being a racist doesn't make it so. Consider the source…”

Obama is driven (and defined) by race and class. What could be more revealing about Obama than Black Liberation Theology? I mean, even Oprah Winfrey left the church! Black Liberation Theology (BLT) is the belief that African Americans are the “victims” of a white racist society (which they WERE). BLT has been criticized as a Marxist philosophy, but Marxism is really just class warfare (no, I’m not accusing Obama of being a Marxist). Michelle’s comment that "for the first time in my adult life I am proud of my country…” is a window into the Chicago politics of “victimization“, and the condition of African Americans in American society. In the book “Dreams of My Father”, Obama quotes the Reverend Jeremiah Wright,

“White man’s Greed versus a World in Need”

The media, more or less, ignored quotes like this, but they provide valuable information on his philosophy. That’s certainly a racist comment, but I never read the passage in the book for context. Obama was immersed in this belief system of the Wright church for twenty years. Wright is an anti Semite. In addition, the church honored another anti Semite and racist - Farrakhan.

Obama believes in a bottom up economic philosophy. Redistribution of wealth is one way to redress white oppression - as well as address the needs of the poor. Reread the quote to Joe the plumber. Its quite revealing and just confirms what he believes is good for America - and fair and just. Above all, Obama is a community activist and he is in a position now where he can make significant changes.

I never called Obama a racist. That’s another fabrication. Rush called Obama a reverse racist because affirmative action is racism. I would attach that more to Sotomayor than Obama, but Obama was certainly aware of her controversial speeches and rulings when he nominated her. He obviously saw nothing wrong with her statements (about white males) when he interviewed her to fill the opening on the Supreme Court. The White House did issue a statement recently in opposition to her statements about white males, however. Interestingly enough, the statement about white males could just be BLT applied to Hispanics - Brown Liberation Theology. That statement may have actually attracted Obama to Sotomayor (of course, that‘s just speculation).

One of my main points is that no Republican could have been associated with a racially inflammatory and anti Semitic church for twenty years without a complete assassination of his/her character by the left (DNC) - and you quite probably the first in line to call him/her a “racist”. I’m not trying to equate the African American experience with whites, but the election of Obama puts to bed the idea that we are a racist nation. We are in post racial America now. I would be remarkably naïve to believe, however, that Democrats will not use race as a wedge issue in the future. As the Reverend Wright said,

"They [Jews] will not let him to talk to somebody who calls a spade what it is. ... I said from the beginning: He's a politician; I'm a pastor. He's got to do what politicians do."

In the last election, Obama pulled the race card on Bill Clinton - our country's first black President. In addition, the race industry will be alive and thriving in America for decades to come. Finally, I have my prejudices, biases and bigotries like every other human being.

blund Author Profile Page :

Tom,

Personally, I'm a big Obama fan. I think he is intelligent and articulate. I think he's Centrist who will govern from the middle. I haven't much cared for his economic policies, but I have yet to hear an alternative that makes sense so I go with them. I am glad he is representing the US around the world. At least I believe people will respect him.

Repub's are still fond of bringing up Carter anytime someone dares to criticize Bush. Carter was out of office 28 years ago. Get used to it. It will be a long time before people stop talking negatively about GW. As much as you may wish the ghost of Bush won't hang around the R's neck it's not about to happen. He was that bad and deserves more negative comments then I can think up.

Don't you think it's rather a stretch to equate a late night talk show host with the left. I could see maybe John Stewart, but Letterman? Get real. Trying to use a joke that was made in poor taste is nothing more or less then humor not working. I am not a fan of attacking and/or making jokes of politicans children unless they are over the age of 18 and then only if they have invited it by either what they've said or done.

I know you are grasping at straws and actually I find it rather amusing. Your, "Fill in the blank. Ayatollah Khamenei or Barack Obama," is such an example. Putting these two individuals in the same sentence is laughable. However, when you have nothing to work with you'll take what you can get. I sincerely hope the Repub's keep on sniping and stay away from serious politics for a while. That way the dems will control the process for years to come.

Another case in point is your continued references to Obama as a racist. Earth to Tom, are you kidding me? Who is more of a racist? You or Obama? Just because Rush is hopped up on Oxycontin and slurs his diatribes against Obama being a racist doesn't make it so. Consider the source.

The point I was trying to make in my previous post was the R's need a platform and a plan. They can't keep being obstructionists and the party of no without proposing an alternative and expect people to take them seriously. As long as Letterman, Obama being a racist, Sotomayor being a racist, etc., etc., is more important then the economy, health care, trade, immigration, etc. the longer the R's will roll around in their tainted bubble bumping into real issues by accident.

yeolds Author Profile Page :

TOM:
To the the history of the Palestine Israel dog-fight the connection to Hungary is negligible[or nil], while that of the USA is existential. Thus to discuss the topic, the history of USA is important , while the history of Hungary is nil.

As you propose that you believe in RULE OF LAW, then you can not attempt to justify the political positioning of ABBAS, for politiclly he is a dead duck [his proper position is EX_PRESIDENT as of jan 2009].
Whether the USA and or ISrael wishes to talk with ABBAS the political significance of such talks is nil - except as a joke or spin on their respected citizens or lobby groups. Israel and USA might as well talk to a wall, or one of their lobbyist for all the resulot vis-a-vis P/I peace.

Bogdan_in_Chicago Author Profile Page :

But I trust that General Jones has a thoughtful, considerate, measured and forceful policy approach to this discrepancy in Iran. I guess Biden was right. The One is being tested within the first six months of His presidency.

TomW2 Author Profile Page :

Bob

You are too sensitive, Bob. It seems to me that you are really defensive whenever Obama is criticized and then you inevitably launch a tirade against Bush. Try a new strategy, defend Obama’s policies!

“…You have to realize Palin is a joke in democratic circles. We don't take her seriously and we're convinced she isn't capable of taking herself seriously. That would require two interconnecting thoughts and that has yet to happen in her life. Her fiasco over the fund raiser in Washington last week even has repub's scratching their heads. She may be the darling of the tainted bubble people, but to the rest of us she's just a circus and only good for a few laughs. Also, I hope you aren't implying here David Letterman's jokes (or lack thereof) was some liberal conspiracy endorsed by the DNC since that would really be delusional…”

You (and it’s a reoccurring theme) miss the point of what I said. Palin’s personal life, her family and children, religion, have been a focal point of media attention. Yes, her politics is fair game - just like Obama‘s (although you would never believe it by your posts).

Letterman is your typical hate mongering left winger, that much is certain. Does he really think he’s funny? I saw one CNN anchor lady openly laughing when Letterman’s told a joke about Palin (during this controversy). This is media endorsed hatred of Palin and media endorsed attacks against her children. Do you see the difference? I don’t care about the DNC in this case. The DNC is irrelevant to what I’m saying.

“…When people didn't rally around the last commander in chief repub's called them traitors and people who emboldened the enemy. Can I now say the same thing of you. Since you obviously don't think Obama is a capable leader are you now fair game for this despicable rhetoric?…”

Why do you continue to make such dumb comments? I may criticize his leadership (gee, is that OK, Bob?), but that certainly doesn‘t mean that I don‘t believe he can lead (I support his policies in Afghanistan and Iraq, for example). I must really frustrate you at some point for you to fabricate these accusations. I do believe that he uses race as a wedge issue for political reasons (recall the primaries and the Clintons), but recall my first post on this question:

“…The idea of the speech in Cairo was to put pressure on all the players in the Middle East for the peace process. No one will want to be seen politically as holding up peace. Obama’s speech in Cairo fit his agenda well. It was carefully thought out, and I believe that there is a certain amount of enthusiasm or motivation that resulted from his speech. In other words, his speech was effective. It is also possible that the Obama speech could influence the Iranian elections which are coming up in the near future (if they are not rigged). That would be a very positive development…”

In fact that is an endorsement of his leadership.

The rest of your post is senseless. Get used to me commenting on left wing hate and intolerance. Its out there and needs to be addressed - just like right wing hate (most recently, the attack against the Holocaust museum). The left is fully capable of hate and intolerance. Just ask Ms. California. You’re in denial, that’s all.

Finally, I am going to hammer away at Obama's policies, but unlike you (and Bush policies), I will give him credit when credit is warranted. I've said it before - I enjoy being on the other side of the fence for once. You apparently do not.

blund Author Profile Page :

Tom,

Oh, you are delusional. Do you really think the Jewish Community in the US is stupid? If the answer to this question is no then explain to me why almost 70% of this community is liberal and votes democrat. I knew the neocon bubble was tinted, but now it's just tainted.

Are you blaming the democrats for firing Ms. California? I've got to hear this one. I'm sure there's some twisted logic here somewhere. Maybe it was Obama's fault?

You have to realize Palin is a joke in democratic circles. We don't take her seriously and we're convinced she isn't capable of taking herself seriously. That would require two interconnecting thoughts and that has yet to happen in her life. Her fiasco over the fund raiser in Washington last week even has repub's scratching their heads. She may be the darling of the tainted bubble people, but to the rest of us she's just a circus and only good for a few laughs. Also, I hope you aren't implying here David Letterman's jokes (or lack thereof) was some liberal conspiracy endorsed by the DNC since that would really be delusional.

When people didn't rally around the last commander in chief repub's called them traitors and people who emboldened the enemy. Can I now say the same thing of you. Since you obviously don't think Obama is a capable leader are you now fair game for this despicable rhetoric? I guess this question is answered by what side of the majority you are on.

You keep throwing out words like "hate" when you talk about the liberals. This just seems to be another case of neonuts wanting something to be the case when the exact opposite is true. When it comes to tolerance liberals win hands down. We tolerate just about everyone while your party hates everyone who doesn't agree with you.

I'm sorry, but it's pathetic to look at what's left of the republican party today. There's no plan, there's no structure. No one in the party has a clue what direction to go in. America got 8 years of incompetent leadership and they blame your party. The closest thing I've seen from you on acknowledging Bush was incompetent for the job was your teleprompter remark. Yes, we do have a president who can actually read and speak in sentences today and it is refreshing.

I firmly believe the neocons will rise from the ashes in a few years and be a force to be reckoned with again. However, that time isn't now. The honeymoon with Obama is a long way from being over. I would agree that part of this has to do with the press. They love the guy. He's accessible, which Bush was not. He's articulate, which Bush was not and they enjoy the interaction with him which they did not with Bush. He is the anti-Bush and they love it.

However, until the repub's can come up with a better plan then "believe us and not your lying eyes," your party will aimlessly roll around in it's tainted bubble," just bumping into things and being chuckled at. The repub's need to put something concrete on the table worth having a party for and stop engaging in smear and innuendo for it's own sake.

Bogdan_in_Chicago Author Profile Page :

This is kind of embarrassing but no big deal. No sense in overly debating this. Switch sides. Obama can now consciously side with Netanyahu and allow him to bomb their nuclear facilities and government offices. Just go with the flow.

TomW2 Author Profile Page :

As voting began on Friday morning, journalists gathered to watch _____________ cast his vote…. Just after 8 a.m., a set of brown curtains opened and the leader emerged…..The journalists…gasped and then chanted a religious blessing.

Fill in the blank. Ayatollah Khamenei or Barack Obama.

TomW2 Author Profile Page :

Bob

From “Rasmussen Reports”, Monday June 8, 2009:

“…Voters now trust Republicans more than Democrats on six out of 10 key issues, including the top issue of the economy. The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 45% now trust the GOP more to handle economic issues, while 39% trust Democrats more. This is the first time in over two years of polling that the GOP has held the advantage on this issue. The parties were close in May, with the Democrats holding a modest 44% to 43% edge. The latest survey was taken just after General Motors announced it was going into bankruptcy as part of a deal brokered by the Obama administration that gives the government majority ownership of the failing automaker. Voters not affiliated with either party now trust the GOP more to handle economic issues by a two-to-one margin…”

Oh I realize that people change their minds monthly, but the point here is that the honeymoon is over for Obama. Americans are telling the President that the buck stops in the oval office - not the Bush ranch in Texas. More and more, people are discovering that Bush no longer occupies the White House. I admit, its confusing. From a distance, Laura and Michelle are indistinguishable. Obama didn’t pull out of Iraq, and he increased our commitment in Afghanistan, but some things are changing in the White House if you pay close attention. What’s the best way to tell that Obama is the President? He can actually read a teleprompter. Did I say that?

David Letterman’s hateful and tasteless attack on Sara Palin and her daughter typifies the hate of the left, and it also shows - once again - how the media treats Obama differently than conservatives. Obama said his family was off limits - and the willing media complied, but Sara has been crucified by the left - and no part of her family or personal life is off limits (or ever has been). By not defending Ms Palin, left wing women’s rights groups are complicit in this hate fest of the intolerant left. Can you imagine anyone attacking the Obama daughters like this?

This comes in addition to the firing of Miss California for exercising her free speech, and supporting, tastefully, that a marriage is between a man and a woman. She was attacked by the left and called a Bi..ch. Intolerance anyone?

We’ve discussed left wing bigotry against Christians, and certainly the left has exhibited an unusual degree of anti Semitism lately. Now we see left wing hate against women that don’t conform to the ideals of the left. Thankfully, the bastion of left wing hate - Europe - continues to vote more conservatively.

blund Author Profile Page :

And people think neocons and liberals can't communicate or agree.......

TomW2 Author Profile Page :

Bob

I’m a poor deluded neocon? Uh……OK, I’ll give you that point.

TomW2 Author Profile Page :

Salamon

“…am aware of the History of Hungary , do not need lectures…”

“… The Zionist dream has a total life expectency of under 150 years, as does the Imperil notions of USA in less then 220 years [from the date of confederation, which was created by genocide of natives]….”

I am aware of the History of US, do not need lectures [either].

“…Zionist Israel's various Governments have killed far more people, US Marines [Liberty], Palestinians [for 60 years], Lebanese, and who knows whom else via Mossad's international reach then did Palestinians killing Jews in various uprising against internationally condemned occupation….”

By far. The Israeli to Palestinian death ratio is horrendous in favor of the Jews (and Lebanon as well). The Israelis have always killed far more Palestinians than Palestinians have killed Israelis. The disproportionate response has been heavily criticized by the international community. Maybe the Palestinian leaders need to reevaluate provoking Israel?

To get to your question. Of course, I believe in the rule of law. No society can exist (for long) without it - whether under authoritarian rule or not. Is Abbas a puppet of the West, and Israel? Yes, in the sense that the West and Israel (especially) keep Abbas in power. The alternative for Israel is obviously not in her interest - the West Bank controlled by Hamas. Hamas turned Gaza into a terror state - and the same result is likely in the West Bank. Neither Hamas or the PA understands the rule of law. Both rule by the sword.

Right now, the biggest obstacle to peace is Hamas - and they will continue to be unless they renounce violence (resistance) and recognize Israel’s right to exist (as a Jewish state).

“…Without armaments Israel will not be a major power of any kind in 10-15 years, thus the end of the Zionist Dream….”

I wish you would quit saying this. Its utterly ridiculous.

TomW2 Author Profile Page :

JRLR

I was shocked to find out that you and PAW are the same poster. Oh, on occasion, I might have thought to myself that PAW was JRLR JR politically, but it never dawned on me that you were one and the same. Imagine that.

If I had known, I wouldn’t have wasted my time with the second half of my post to you, but, at least, the first half would still have been appropriate.

“…That is why, as long as you continue to enjoy throwing numbers around liberally so as to better selectively demonize, there is nothing for us to discuss….”

But didn’t you say just a couple of days ago….

“…representing a country whose own citizens have, in such large number and by their own admission (refer to the multiple public testimonies of Iraq Veterans against the War), killed not one innocent, but hundreds of thousands of innocent women, children and old people in Iraq, in Afghanistan, in Pakistan, etc. throughout the years….”

So it appears that you also enjoy throwing numbers around to press your agenda. Now if we look back in time to a previous post by you (“Was Columbia Wrong to Invite Ahmadinejad?” - PostGlobal question):

“…Since the end of WWII, how many million deaths have we been responsible for, directly or indirectly, and for no other reason than to further the interests of the empire?…”

Who is throwing numbers out here? Who is selectively demonizing? Did you even attempt to put the numbers in perspective? So, in fact, you are more than willing to play the numbers game. I don't really understand your argument here.

“…As long as you consider anti-American the fact that a human being denounces and condemns American barbarism, American war crimes and American crimes against humanity, there is nothing for us to discuss. As long as you insist to define aggression and genocide as self-defence and/or liberation, there is nothing for us to discuss. As long as you persist in preaching that to kill millions of people and to destroy millions of people’s lives amounts to saving lives through self-sacrifice, there is nothing for us to discuss. As long as you remain proud to call a world enslaved by permanent conflict and perpetual war the “free world”, there is nothing for us to discuss…”

So as long as I agree with you, we can discuss the issues. As long as I denounce the foreign policy of the US, we have common grounds for a discussion. As long as I refer to George Bush as a war criminal, and demand that he be dragged before the ICC, we might even exchange e-mail addresses. Would you be offended if I passed on the offer? May I suggest that you get together with the other Canadian rabidly anti American poster on this site - Salamon. It should also be noted, JRLR that I admire Canada, and appreciate the help that the Canadian military is giving in Afghanistan.

“…Not only is there nothing for us to discuss: given we don’t even rise to the level of minimal moral integrity to begin with, we have no business taking part in any discussion on morality….”

Sorry, I just view the world differently than you, but as long as you post on this site, you are fair game to criticize. Whether you respond or not is entirely up to you. I don’t care either way.

At any rate, I’m glad to see that you’re still alive. Of course, I missed you (well, so I thought).

Amir who?

chlai88 Author Profile Page :

The speech by Obama is not given just to pander and apologize to the Middle East and Muslims, it is a smart, carefully calculated strategy to expand America's leverage in the world. The lessons so far in Iraq, Israel's Gaza, Lebanon invasions, etc have shown the limitations of the military option and can have a counter-productive backlash effect if civilians are killed. Obama is simply thinking out of the box and using smarter non-military tactics to solve problems.

The speech in Cairo is also meant to expand reasoned voices against extremist voices and replace the incitements of terrorists with his arguments. His basic strategy is simple, to unite moderates along common basic human aspirations and values against fear, bigotry, hate, ignorance, intolerance, violence. Things will definitely change not only in Mid-East but in the rest of the world. These are exciting times.

blund Author Profile Page :

Yeolds,

Thanks for the link. Very interesting and refreshing approach. We currently have a situation where gasoline supplies are high and demand has leveled off, yet prices are on the rise based on what people are calling, "speculation." I think that is a euphemism for "greed" these days. Artifical scarcities for the purpose of pumping up profits.

It is also worth noting the US is currently on number 22. 22 is the number of recessions in our relatively short history. This is the ninth recession of my life alone. Granted some are obviously worse then others and last longer, but our economy is anything but recession proof. Since 1797 through today (212 years) the US has been a recession approximately 62 of those years. Roughly, 3 out of every ten years of our country's history has been spent in a recession. Yet, when times are good only smart investors and business people act accordingly. The rest of the people think the good times and appreciation will just keep on going. When it stops they are in serious trouble. This is a theme that has been played out throughout our country's history.

It could be argued since the great depression the scope and durations of our recessions have been drastically cut up until the most recent one we're still in. This isn't meant to imply the system isn't breakable since I think under the right circumstances it is. It really comes down to an argument about how much government intervention, direction and oversight would be prudent to assist a nation in promoting long term growth (stability). This is one of the fundamental differences between Dems and Repubs in America. Dems believe the safegaurds put in place at the end of the great depression and subsequently were a good start, but not enough to regulate business and commerce sufficiently to thwart a bad economic downturn like we're witnessing today. Repub's believe the government should have only a passing interest and let business basically regulate itself. My problem with the repub approach is the inherit conflict of interest this approach has built into it. Any industry is looking for profits to satisfy stockholders. They are only interested in other industries as to how they will effect their profitability. They could care less about industries that don't have an impact on them. This system just begs the question is it within the socieities best interest to let industries develop programs to generate profits at the expense of the society? A case in point would be our current dilemna. Wall Street partnered up with the subprime mortgage industry to create profits with little to no regard to the overhaul impact these actions would have on the country and the other countries in the world. They did it stickly for short term gain. Was allowing this to happen prudent? I argue it wasn't. The creation of artifical and false markets is a fool's game and shouldn't be allowed to take place. This requires regulation which will be enforced and oversight to spot the problems, both of which were completely lacking. (Yes Tom, this was Bush's fault eventhough you want to blame Clinton for Bush's failures)

My argument is while more government oversight and regulation will limit boom times it will also limit the inevitable downturns we have in our economy. The highs may not be as high, but the lows won't be as low either. People like Tom will say I'm promoting socialism and he's not far off. I happen to think social democracy has many advantages over our current system. (See Tom, I told Obama wasn't a socialist. I know socialists when I hear them and he ain't one).

blund Author Profile Page :

Tom,

You poor deluded neocon. Liberals could care less about race, religion or sex. So what if Sotomayor is Hispanic? Who cares? I don't. I don't care if Obama chose a man, women, or any color under the rainbow. All I care about is the person is competent to sit on the bench. The only circle making this a race issue is the R's.

Obama is a racist because he chose Sotomayor and attended a black liberation church. Obama is a bad person because he had coffee with Bill Ayers once. Obama's a socialist because he wants a national health care system. Do you see the pattern here? Only deluded neocons believe Obama is a racist subversive socialist. That's the picture the R's are trying to paint and they really believe if they repeat it often enough the majority is going to believe it.

As far as Obama stating he inherited a mess when he took over the Oval Office, he did. Everybody knows it. When Bush took over we weren't at war and he inherited a surplus. When he left office the deficits were out of sight, wall street had melted down, we were in two wars and on the verge of economic collapse. I'm sory you don't like these facts, but they are facts. Your time to move on comment is spoken like a man who takes no responsibility for what we're going through today. What is this comment all about? Please people just forget how bad Bush screwed things up and start blaming Obama for Bush's failures? I'll be the first to admit Carter, while a genuinely nice and moral man, was a terrible president. He was ineffective. I have yet to hear a neocon apologize for how bad Bush was. If this is because neocon's don't believe he was a terrible president then they are delusional.

Daho Author Profile Page :

Obama's speech was made by an excellent speaker who had a difficult task which required lots of diplomacy. He was able to deliver a speech which satisfied his listeners and include all the deificiencies existing in Muslim states.
What seemed to be disturbing is how did the USofA decided it had to 'apologize' to the Muslims who have been and are respponsible of so much violence and deaths, particularly in the last two or three decades, and who represent the majority of terrorists in the world today. Let us hope that a courageous Muslim leader will imitate Obama and apologizes for the evil deeds performed in the name of their religion and try to correct its present antagonistim to all non-muslims.
If the human beings finally realize that violence calls for violence and that in this 21st century, they should have learnt from past history and experiences, perhaps would they will find out that dialogue, peaceful approach and respect of the other may be the best solution we may have.
Unfortunately, it is difficult to be very optimistic as human beings have gone too far in the wrong directions and may have passed the point of no return.
Reading the various comments does not allow much optimism.

TomW2 Author Profile Page :

JRLR, Salamon

Lost posts to you both so I'll try to post you after work today. Sorry.

TomW2 Author Profile Page :

Bob

Every time, it seems, that Obama addresses the economic mess, he starts by saying he “inherited” the crisis. Time for Obama to quit blaming everything on Bush - and stand by the decisions that he has made (and he‘s made a huge amount of decisions). Every time, it seems, we discuss Obama - you go off on a tirade about Bush. Yoo-hoo, hello Bob. Bush no longer is President. Remember January 20th?

The nomination of a liberal Hispanic to the Supreme Court is another positive step forward in America race relations, but she has made the issue of race (identity politics) a part of this nomination process by her own decisions and racist and sexist comments. No one else is to blame. Don’t try to downplay her quote - or downplay the decision she made regarding the white firefighters. Trent Lott said much less and lost his position as Senate Majority leader. Personally, I’m tired of the double standard of race issues. This isn’t the mid twentieth century, Bob. Guess who came to dinner at the White House.

Identity politics is about race, and race relations is the focal point in Obama’s background. He was immersed in Chicago politics - and the race industry (ACORN, for example). His work history is one of identity politics and “victimlogy“. For twenty years, he attended a church that inflamed racial issues with extreme views on identity politics and racism. You simply cannot take “Them Jews…” out of context, Bob. Sorry. Wright is an anti Semite and bigot. No question that Obama understood that Sotomayor’s nomination would inflame race relations in America. She fits what he sincerely believes - she is a successful despite growing up in a racist society. He fully believes that we are still a racist society despite his election. He fully believes that the race industry is still necessary in America, and that minorities are still oppressed in this country. He fully believes that changing the socioeconomic status of minorities is a priority in bringing about justice in racist America.

If you are going to nominate people that inflame racial divisiveness in the country, then race will remain an issue, but isn’t that what liberals and democrats want? Are L/D lost without race as an issue?

blund Author Profile Page :

Tom,

First, I hadn't heard the White House appointed the Reverend Wright as a spokesman for Obama. Is this something new? Also, color me skeptical, but I would need to see the whole of the conversation Wright had before I'd pass judgment on it. It's not like the press doesn't get it wrong more then they get it right. I will never forget having Julian Bond speak at Hartwick College in 1975. After his speech he took questions and answers. At the end a reporter from the Oneonta Newspaper asked Bond his opinion on what was going in South Africa. He spent 5 minutes talking about it and the struggle that was going on and then at the end he said if none of that worked we could always nuke them. The crowd laughed out loud as they knew it was a joke. The next day on the front page of the Oneonta newspaper the headline was Julian Bond advocates using nuclear weapons on South Africa. Did he say it? Well, yes he did. Did he mean it. Of course not. Hence, the old line, "Believe half of what you see and 10 percent of what you read."

Second, my first wife was and still is a minister who teaches at a Seminary. Liberation Theology is nothing new. In various forms the black community has been engaging in Liberation Theology longer then we've been alive. (and that's a long time) Do I agree with it? Not really, but I do have a basic understanding of it and can see why it developed. I have very distinct memories of being in Florida, Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi and Louisiana in 1959 and witnessed segregation first hand. True, I was only 8 years old at the time, but I still remember separate restaurants, baths and even drinking fountains. Being from NY as I child I found it rather disgusting.

As much as repub's would like to paint Obama as a radical it isn't going to happen. Of course that could be becuase he isn't, but I doubt that will stop the repub's. They've never met a dem they didn't slander so I doubt Obama will be any different.

It was no secret I hated Bush. Although, I tried to make it clear it was Bush and his policies I hated and not the party. I was upset about Bush for invading Iraq. I was upset for committing torture. I was upset for wasting money building a white elephant of a southern wall. I was upset by his response to Katrina. I was upset by his failure to catch and/or kill BinLaden. These were the policies that led me to believe the man was a very bad man. I didn't go after him becuase I didn't like the church he attended. I didn't go after him because he gave money to charities. I didn't go after him for basically being a draft dodger. I never once assumed he was a racist. During the course of his presidency I came to believe he was basically a good many without the intelligence to come in out of the rain. (Cheney is a different story. I never believed he was a good man)

I hope you can see the point. Going after Obama for his church, his religion or his associations with Bill Ayers (which were virtually non-existant) comes off as really petty. I could understand you going after his policies that have national impacts. I could see saying I believe Obama has mortgaged our kids future in trying to pull us out of our financial doldrums. However, turning over every rock, no matter how petty, and then twisting it to the point where it has little resemblence to reality is not a positive quality.

yeolds Author Profile Page :

BOB:

An interesting analysis of ecopnomics [by a physicist/archiitect]

the ensuing discussio is also of note;
http://www.theoildrum.com/node/5478

Bogdan_in_Chicago Author Profile Page :

"If Washington uncovered evidence of direct or indirect Iranian terrorist activities in America, for example, even the Obama administration would have to consider direct retaliation inside Iran." ---John Bolton Smart guy. The lack of WMD evidence taught him a valuable lesson to plant evidence. Amazing that anyone from the W administration is allowed to use the word evidence in a sentence without a chuckle from the audience/reader.

Citizenofthepost-Americanworld Author Profile Page :

Tom

I’m about to disappoint you, I’m afraid. There must always be a first time, I suppose.

Your anger was such that you missed my point. Essentially it has to do with ethics and a little metaphysics (Obama’s quote from the Holy Koran); above all it has to do with minimal moral integrity, on the part of citizens belonging to what some claim to be the world’s one and only leading nation on human rights. That includes its President. Ethics has everything to do with human values. It has nothing to do with number games.

That is why, as long as you continue to enjoy throwing numbers around liberally so as to better selectively demonize, there is nothing for us to discuss. As long as you consider anti-American the fact that a human being denounces and condemns American barbarism, American war crimes and American crimes against humanity, there is nothing for us to discuss. As long as you insist to define aggression and genocide as self-defence and/or liberation, there is nothing for us to discuss. As long as you persist in preaching that to kill millions of people and to destroy millions of people’s lives amounts to saving lives through self-sacrifice, there is nothing for us to discuss. As long as you remain proud to call a world enslaved by permanent conflict and perpetual war the “free world”, there is nothing for us to discuss. Not only is there nothing for us to discuss: given we don’t even rise to the level of minimal moral integrity to begin with, we have no business taking part in any discussion on morality.

At my age, life is too short to waste in futile discussions, the purpose of which is only to divert attention from both our personal and collective moral responsibilities. There have been exceptions, of course. As you will remember, I did waste time here once, in 2006, demonstrating conclusively that Amir Taheri, which you then believed, never had any credibility, least of all demonizing Iran for allegedly being in the process of requiring Jews to wear distinctive color badges. Canada's National Post, which had initially published the story, subsequently issued a retraction. For the reasons given in the preceding paragraph, I will not go through that kind of exercise this time.

Now back to Obama's speech in Cairo and to the kind of change it will, or won't bring.

It remains my opinion that at this stage of a totally revolting, illegitimate and discredited U.S. military adventure in Iraq, the plight of Iraqi orphans is only one prime example of the pressing human rights issues Obama has the moral and political responsibility to deal with, in the Muslim world, as current president of the United States of America, rather than waste everybody's time quoting the Holy Koran to people who are more familiar with it than he is, while the U.S. continues, under him as Commander in Chief, to conduct itself precisely the way the Holy Koran condemns, and in that very quote.

yeolds Author Profile Page :

TOM:
This is not a question period a la Westminster or Canada's house of Commons where a politician's q is answered by some unrelated nonsense:

The Question posed to you was DO YOU BELIEVE IN THE RULE OF LAW, or not? You did not answer!

Remarks on your last post to me:

I am aware of the History of Hungary, do not need lectures.

Zionist Israel's various Governments have killed far more people, US Marines [Liberty], Palestinians [for 60 years], Lebanese, and who knows whom else via Mossad's international reach then did Palestinians killing Jews in various uprising against internationally condemned occupation.

There are 3 main reasons that ISrael either settles during the Obama Administration, or that the Jews will end up as minotity in a single State:
1., declining power of USA [wherein China, Russia, India, Brazil etc [the rising powers] do not consider Israel to be a major issue for them. [the other pillar of Zioniosm, the UK is on the verge of financial collapse.]
2., Peak oil, peak natural resources, will limit all nations' ability to devote scarce resources to war, and armament manufacture.
3., Global warming, which will take resources to survival as opposed to armaments.

Without armaments Israel will not be a major power of any kind in 10-15 years, thus the end of the Zionist Dream.

abd_almlk2006yahoocom Author Profile Page :

good first step to visit countries of the middleeast and discussion the problem to all and makefront to peace between arab and israel ,succeed need work together and supervised from united state of america ,because it has respect from all,*abdalmalek journalist writer

TomW2 Author Profile Page :

Parklol

Good points. Thanks for the post.

farklol Author Profile Page :

Tom: "China has killed more of their own people than were killed in WW II. Even today, they still occupy Tibet (without any timetable to withdraw because there is none), and are accused of enough human rights abuses to keep Amnesty International busy for years to come."

I know you were addressing someone else, but I'd like to add my thoughts on this. China didn't kill so many of their own people, Maoist collectivism did. You see, China has a lot of people, and every tragedy gets scaled up. So every time theres a natural disaster, or a civil war, or a political revolution, or a foreign invasion, or horrible mismanagement (based on bad ideologies), lots and lots of people die. If you look at the bigger perspective, there's less death and suffering in China today than any other time in Chinese history. And it's going to get better in the future as living standards improve for the average Chinese.

As for Tibetans, I would put them with the Turkish Kurds and Palestinians as ultimately losers in history. I really don't know who else in the West really cares about them except for a few New-Age hippy types in Hollywood. The fact is that there's always losers in history, where tribes gain and lose land and smaller ones get absorbed by bigger, stronger tribes. The borders of nations a hundred years ago looks completely different than it does now.

TomW2 Author Profile Page :

Bob

I see where the Reverend Wright is back in the news:

“………Asked if he had spoken to the President, Wright said: "Them Jews aren't going to let him talk to me. I told my baby daughter, that he'll talk to me in five years when he's a lame duck, or in eight years when he's out of office.
"They will not let him to talk to somebody who calls a spade what it is. ... I said from the beginning: He's a politician; I'm a pastor. He's got to do what politicians do."
Wright also said Obama should have sent a U.S. delegation to the World Conference on Racism held recently in Geneva, Switzerland, but that the president did not do so for fear of offending Jews and Israel.
"Ethnic cleansing is going on in Gaza. Ethnic cleansing of the Zionist is a sin and a crime against humanity, and they don't want Barack talking like that because that's anti-Israel," Wright said…..”

The Jews just control our government - and Obama. Is there any doubt that Wright is an anti Semite and bigot. I get such a kick out of the left. We both know that had a Republican been a member of a (white) church like this for twenty years, he wouldn’t have even got out of the primaries - let alone been elected Presidency. Why would Obama remain a member of an obviously anti Semitic church for twenty years? Because Obama believes, at least in part, in black liberation theology.

If candidates - like Sotomayor and Obama - are themselves the “victims” of a racist society (even though one is now President and the other a Supreme Court nominee), then racism is embraced as almost a testament to their intellectual capability and ability to overcome long odds to succeed.

“…"I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experience would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life."…”

Who can argue with that statement? Certainly, no rich, white male could understand the experiences of Hispanic women. Only Sotomayor could possibly understand how a poor and downtrodden Hispanic or African American (especially woman) must battle long odds to succeed in our racist, white-dominated society. In fact, those very same white males are not only oblivious to the plight of Hispanic women, but are the cause of the problem to begin with. Thus, Sotomayer is imminently more qualified to serve on the Supreme Court than a white male.

My God, Bob. Its all so obvious now. We are the oppressors.

TomW2 Author Profile Page :

Salamon.

“…The Zionist dream has a total life expectency of under 150 years, as does the Imperil notions of USA in less then 220 years [from the date of confederation, which was created by genocide of natives]…”

Oh please, Salamon. Where are you from ? Hungary? How many Jews did Hungary turn over to the Nazis, Salamon? In fact, Hungary was nothing but a Nazi state - beholden to Hitler.

According to Wikipedia, “…Hungarian authorities deported 437,402 Jews, all but 15,000 went to Auschwitz-Birkenau. One in three Jews killed at Auschwitz was a Hungarian citizen….”

We all have skeletons in our native closet, Salamon. You too.

“…That Omert promised 97% of West BAnk is also neither here nor there, as Olmert did not promise SOVEREIGNITY, just another form of slavery under Isreal's iron fist….”

You will have to explain what you mean by that. After all, negotiations must start with the boundaries of a Palestinian state. If anything, the Israelis are against the Palestinian state because the West Bank will become another launching point for Palestinian (Hamas) terrorism - like Gaza. I can see their point.

TomW2 Author Profile Page :

PAW

“…I still wonder how it felt to utter those words, representing a country whose own citizens have, in such large number and by their own admission (refer to the multiple public testimonies of Iraq Veterans against the War), killed not one innocent, but hundreds of thousands of innocent women, children and old people in Iraq, in Afghanistan, in Pakistan, etc. throughout the years, a country which even continued to do so while President Obama spoke in Cairo!…”

But, PAW, didn’t you say that “…China’s internal affairs are China’s exclusive business…”??

From “Source List and Detailed Death Tolls for the Twentieth Century Hemoclysm”. Estimates of deaths under Communist China - reasons listed below:

CHINA (57 million)

Chinese civil war: 2.5 million
Great Leap Forward(?): 14 estimates - 31-33 million
Cultural Revolution: 13 estimates - 1 million
Ethnic minorities (Tibetans mostly): 8 estimates - .75 million
Labor Camps: 5 estimates - 20 million

To suggest, or leave the impression that you are concerned about civilian deaths and human rights is absurd. Your statement is certainly ample proof of that. China has killed more of their own people than were killed in WW II. Even today, they still occupy Tibet (without any timetable to withdraw because there is none), and are accused of enough human rights abuses to keep Amnesty International busy for years to come. However, you are unabashedly an anti American so typical of the Canadian (far) left.

US-obsessed posters always cite civilian casualties caused by the US, but few care one iota about civilian casualties. The left was conspicuously absent during the war in Sri Lanka where 20,000 civilians were reportedly killed. The left could care less. The same in Chechnya where over 100,000 civilians were killed. The Tamils would have been much better off if the Sri Lanka government discovered oil off their coast and hired Exxon to recover the crude - then the left would have come out of the woodwork to condemn the Sri Lanka government. You fit right in this group - clearly driven by US policy, not civilian deaths.

The US has done far more good than bad, but the US has crossed the line with some poorly thought out policies - and abused her power on occasion. The US fought the North Koreans and are responsible for saving countless South Korean lives. The South Koreans government - free and democratic - stands in stark contrast to the North Koreans under Kim Jong-il who is responsible for the deaths of 2-4 million of his own people. The US fought in Korea for ideological reasons, oh, and also some cheap T-shirts. How many lives did the US save in Taiwan protecting the democratic government from China? While Viet Nam was a disaster, the South Vietnamese would have been far better off separate from the rule of the North Vietnamese. We all tend to forget that the US sacrificed over 100,000 lives for ideological reasons (Korea and Viet Nam) - and not out of economic interest. Few remember that Communist regimes accounted for over 100,000,000 deaths in the twentieth century. The Cuban missile crisis brought us to the brink of nuclear war with the Soviet Union which greatly influenced US policy.

The US ended the Bosnian massacre (because of the impotent Europeans), and saved Kosovo from potential Serbian atrocities. Today, Kosovo is a separate state. The US also liberated the Kuwaitis from Iraq. The people of Afghanistan also were liberated (over 90% of the people prefer the current government under Karzai to the return of the Taliban according to a BBC/AbC poll conducted this year). Yes, the Iraqis were also liberated. While that might not have been the point of the invasion, the Shiites and Kurds are far better off today than under the despotic rule of Saddam. The majority Shiites are rightfully ruling Iraq, and the Shiites, Sunnis and Kurds are also sharing power. Removing Saddam from office came out great sacrifice to the Iraqi people, but Saddam was responsible for the loss of more than three million lives - so the rule of Saddam also came at great sacrifice to the Iraqi people - as well as the region.

The free world willingly spent 40 years under the nuclear umbrella of the US, and the US kept the peace in the world - through strength. How many lives did the US save during the cold war before forcing the Soviet Union to collapse (fifteen Russian satellite countries were freed as a result)? Of course, that’s impossible to say because the world was, for the most part, at peace. But surely, countless.

While the US has made numerous mistakes, you really need to keep in perspective the accomplishments - and sacrifice - of the US not only during WW II, but after WW II as well. I don’t expect that to happen, but please don’t feed us the baloney that you care about civilian lives.

Bogdan_in_Chicago Author Profile Page :

Imagine how blend Obama would seem if Gore had been in office for the past 8 years. Right now we would be begging the President to satisfy our natural thirst for some aggression. Keep it in perspective.

alan_howe Author Profile Page :

The President is on the right track in that some political actors require an enemy to convince their populations that only they can keep their country safe and free. Barack Obama removes that prop to their rule. He did the same several weeks ago as I argued in "The Surprising Defeat of Hugo Chavez." Venezuelans, Iranians, Lebanese, and others can see they do not need a thug to protect them from the United States. Anyone can be a friend to the U.S. and keep their country safe and free. I am looking forward eagerly to this Friday's election in Iran for this reason.

yeolds Author Profile Page :

TOM:

There is a question for you:

Are you for rule of law [seeing you argued fopr democracy] or not?

If you are for the rule of law, then Abbas is a nobody in Palestinian terms, as his rule expired 5 moths ago. That the USA [in pocket of AIPAC] politicians want to elevate him to be obidient lap-dog is neither here nor there - he is spent force, assessed by most Palestionians and others as a agent of Israel.

That Omert promised 97% of West BAnk is also neither here nor there, as Olmert did not promise SOVEREIGNITY, just another form of slavery under Isreal's iron fist.

Whatever the Likud idiots think, desire, or hope for, this is the last chance fot Israel to achieve peace during Mr. Obama's Presidency. Thereafter there is only the single state, and end of the JEWISH STATE - though not end of Jews, or Israel. The Zionist dream has a total life expectency of under 150 years, as does the Imperil notions of USA in less then 220 years [from the date of confederation, which was created by genocide of natives].

Bogdan_in_Chicago Author Profile Page :

President Obama’s speech in Cairo was a fantastic gift to David Rockefeller, similar to the way Marilyn Monroe sang for JFK on his birthday. Happy Birthday Mr. Rockefeller.

Kissinger seems to be focused on North Korea. Zbig is protecting Iran. Maybe Israel should threaten to strike North Korea just for a chuckle.

Soon we will have Western looking governments in both Lebanon and Iran. The momentum is astonishing. I say, keep talking Mr. President.

Ali Ettefagh is a brilliant writer. But why perform deeds when words so eloquently suffice. Take your time and enjoy the ride.

But the 'good cop' could have accomplished none of this without the 'bad cop'. So let's keep things in perspective.

TomW2 Author Profile Page :

PG

“…Newsweek editor Evan Thomas brought adulation over President Obama’s Cairo speech to a whole new level on Friday, declaring on MSNBC: "I mean in a way Obama’s standing above the country, above – above the world, he’s sort of God."Thomas, appearing on Hardball with Chris Matthews…”

As the brilliant Rush Limbaugh suggests, Our media might as well be state run…..

TomW2 Author Profile Page :

PG

President Obama has a strategy for solving the Middle East crisis - well at least a different approach to solving a half century old conflict (which may not be solvable).

Obama is trying to gain the confidence of the Arabs in two fundamental ways:

1. Obama is trying to change the perception in the Muslim world that the US holds all Muslims responsible for the attacks of 911. We never have, but perception is important. He is attempting to reconcile US policy with respect to Islam. More importantly, Obama hopes to regain the confidence of US regional allies - Saudi Arabia and Egypt. Iran has used the nuclear issue and the Palestinian conflict to undermine Saudi and Egyptian regional influence. The leaders of both these US allies have been losing the war of propaganda in the Arab street - and they blame the policies of Bush. The rhetoric by Obama is a welcome change. Human rights was never on the agenda in Cairo because the support of Egypt is critical in the peace process.

2. The US is taking a hard-line position with Israel. The Obama administration has demanded that Israel stop all construction in the West Bank. Obama wants our role to be seen as neutral in the Palestinian-Israeli conflict - much as the Europeans have advocated for the US in the past. For the Israelis, acquiescing to this demand would seem wise because the much more important Iranian issue looms in the near future. In other words, play ball with the US with the hope that the US will return the favor if negotiations fail with the Iranians. This will give Obama much needed credibility with the Arabs especially if the US is to be trusted in the upcoming negotiations.

Leftist (especially from Europe) will complain that US actions speak louder than words, or that the US is throwing human rights under the bus in Egypt and Saudi Arabia. As I’ve mentioned in about 100 previous posts, the hypocritical left is much less interested in human rights than criticizing US policy. In addition, they’ll point out that no US President in the last thirty years has supported settlement expansion - yet settlement expansion has continued. That’s one reason that Netanyahu must weigh his response carefully. Right-wingers will complain that Obama is appeasing the terrorist while throwing the one democracy in the Middle East under the bus.

The idea of the speech in Cairo was to put pressure on all the players in the Middle East for the peace process. No one will want to be seen politically as holding up peace. Obama’s speech in Cairo fit his agenda well. It was carefully thought out, and I believe that there is a certain amount of enthusiasm or motivation that resulted from his speech. In other words, his speech was effective. It is also possible that the Obama speech could influence the Iranian elections which are coming up in the near future (if they are not rigged). That would be a very positive development.

According to the Jerusalem Post, Olmert offered the Palestinians 97% of the West Bank and East Jerusalem as their capital in last year‘s talks, so clearly, there is very little that separates the Palestinian and Israeli positions for a Palestinian state. Netanyahu will necessarily concede East Jerusalem to the Palestinians despite his proclamation that Jerusalem will never be split.

Hamas has not been heard from. The importance of Hamas in this process cannot be stressed enough. Abbas has rightly demanded that Hamas recognize Israel and renounce violence. Thus far, they have refused. Hamas’s political wing will need to make some decisions. Will they spoil peace talks once again by launching more rockets into Israel? Hamas and Iran are still the key players in the region.

daniel12 Author Profile Page :

A better edited version of a post I made here...The edited words are in capitals.


Trend of globalization in the political/economic aspect.

Someone asked perhaps the most profound question with respect to globalization that can be asked: Which is the most and which the least likely political/economic organization to take hold as political/economic organization is expected to handle increasing numbers of people and why is it so that a particular type of political/economic organization is better than others in this respect if indeed a particular type of order is more successful than others in this regard?

What do the history books say with respect to this question? It seems whether we want to speak of ancient Egypt and the pharaohs, or China over its history, or India with its caste system, or empires such as the Roman, or the monarchs of the nations of Europe--too many examples from the history books in answer to this question to enumerate--we find that some form of despotism proves more reliable than any other type of political/economic organization conceivable. Emperor; king: tyrant; lord; Caesar;--the names are endless at describing the inevitable spread of power to a center as increasing numbers of people are expected to be contained in a political/economic order--if power has not been located around a center already.

History shows that exceptions to this rule--exceptions considered to be in the direction of liberty and away from despotism (and is there any other direction to go in?)--are justly celebrated and so rare that really only the history of Western civilization can be considered in the macro view to be a history which notices, brings to light these exceptions, is a history of exceptions to this rule. Take the rough stages of Western civilization: the Greeks and the battle of democratic Athens against autocratic/communistic Sparta; the disaster of republican Rome giving way to empire; the dark ages--dark precisely because when the only political/economic organizations are despotic they are not really noticed, or if noticed are realized to be the monotony of one king succeeding another, tyrant after tyrant overthrown, a row of pharaohs (not much progress made except it be a row of despots through time).

And then we have the renaissance in the West; the scientific revolution; the enlightenment; and of course the revolutions of especially the American colonies against Britain and the revolution at home in France. These two revolutions just mentioned are not least revolutions in being able to contain increasing numbers of people in a political/economic organization not despotic. Of course the revolution in France immediately gave way to Napoleon and his rule, but the mold by king upon king upon the people was broken--and dating from the French revolution France has moved more and more to being a political/economic organization for the people. The history of every other civilization than the West shows no comparable progress. We cannot speak of any other civilization than the West being a civilization, history, of breaking the rule of despots and bringing forth the complexity of a rule by the people for the people. In short, it is extremely difficult to organize, make profitable, human beings the more they increase in number, the more these increasing numbers are expected to be contained in a political/economic order.

Far more likely than a rule of people by the people--or other political/economic organizations appreciably removed from despotism--some form of despotism will take hold the more numbers of people expected to be contained in the political/economic order increases. And needless to say , this bodes ill for concepts such as globalization or instruments of order such as the United Nations. And with all this in mind we can see how unjustified it is for people to say, for example, that the U.S. is hypocritical because it says it is for freedom, etc. (all we mean by democracy) but then turns around and supports dictatorships. The U.S. would like for so many other nations to become democratic--liberal democracies not necessarily "liberal" as in left wing (for "liberal" in the U.S. is used interchangeably to mean a free and relatively well functioning democracy capable of being integrated with other advanced democracies or a left wing movement))--but the plain fact is so many peoples, civilizations even such as the Islamic, have not been able to handle increasing numbers of people without some form of despotism as THEIR political/economic order. So the U.S. is really not hypocritical at all. In fact the U.S. is often hopeful to the point of gullibility, believing that democracy can just spread here and there.

And the left wing movements in Western civilization are no help at all. Perhaps they can even be considered responsible for all attempts by Western civilization nations to spread democracy whether by peace or war--for the left wing people in the West conceive a type of political/economic organization which is more difficult to establish in the West than "regular" more or less right wing "liberal" in the old sense (not left wing) democracy let alone establish among peoples not of the West, those with no real history of even democracy. To be clearer about left wing trends in Western civilization, those holding such views believe their socialistic ideas capable of operating not only over more people than "regular" democracy has managed to spread, they believe their views capable of being established over peoples with largely a history of despotism.

This bodes ill for the world. The West--many other people as well in fact--BELIEVES that democracy is not just a thing of the West anymore. All too many people in fact think that worldwide something of the French or American revolution can be made and that history the world over will become roughly as in Western history which so far can be considered the history which is the overcoming of the despotic trend, a breaking out of that monotony of despot upon despot. In fact, all too many people--not least in the West--believe a worldwide socialistic revolution can be made, that democracy and capitalism need not come first, that socialism equals United Nations equals world peace. Let such people have their dreams. The rest of us should be firmly engaged with practicalities on the ground--for no political/economic organization has managed to leave the ground and rest in space.

mibrooks27 Author Profile Page :

I don't have to guess. I spoke with several Arab friends who actually live in the region. To a man, they think Obama is an airhead and gasbag. Everything we read in the U.S. press about the actual reception to this speech is an invention, made up out of thin air. No ""Arab in the street" believes any of this nonsense for one second. In the main, they think that their "leaders" and Obama (or any other U.S. political "leader") have these periodic love feasts for you lame morons in the press. No one actually pays any attention.

pericles21 Author Profile Page :

No one could have rendered a perfect speech in the current context of Mid East affairs. The problem, in Obama's favor, has been that no one had offered anything at all that was positive and connective with the hearts and thinking of any but the most cynical and/or opportunistic mid east players of America's naivete and provincialism. With this said, and IMHO, Obama laid down a near-perfect new beginning: at the very least, he demonstrated a knowledge and empathy that were never before genuine or taken as believable by mid easterners. The is ample time and room for Obama's agenda to unfold, as we can fully expect to happen. Obama is a man of action and fortunately not rash action.

Citizenofthepost-Americanworld Author Profile Page :

Further to my post, I recommend viewing "Iraq orphanages offer haven for homeless", on english.aljazeera.net.

"Years of war have left more than FIVE MILLION Iraqi children orphans, with nearly HALF A MILLION living on the streets.

For some, Iraq's orphanages represent a safe haven for children who have nowhere else to go.

But as Al Jazeera's Hoda Abdel-Hamid reports, the traumatic experiences that many of these children have faced could have far-reaching consequences."

At this stage of a totally illegitimate and discredited military adventure in Iraq, this is one of the pressing issues Obama has the moral responsibility to deal with, in the Muslim world, rather than waste his time quoting the Holy Koran to people who are more familiar with it than he is.


http://english.aljazeera.net/

Zolko Author Profile Page :

The speech was a speech. Now :

- did Obama close Guantanamo ? no
- did he begun withdrawing from Iraq ? no
- did he end the Afghan war ? no
- did he start a new war ? yes (in Pakistan)

I fail to see the change so many people believed-in.

blund Author Profile Page :

Citizenofthepost,

Your point is taken. Good intentions aside it is hard to deliver a message of peace when your past and current histories are mired in hypocrisy.

blund Author Profile Page :

fknipker2,

Yeolds was more subtle then I can be. I am a firm believer we are all responsible for our actions and our words. Your statements are ignorant, bigoted and moronic. If you had an ounce of intelligence you never would have written such rubbish. Obviously, you don't.

Unless you are willing to apologize for your hateful post you will be known as a brain dead wingnut not worth reading.

Citizenofthepost-Americanworld Author Profile Page :

What did I think of Obama's speech in Cairo? What kind of change will, or won't, it bring?

Well... here is what I heard that gave me pause, as President Obama was, it is claimed, reaching out to Muslims.

“The Holy Koran teaches that whoever kills an innocent is as . . . it is as if he has killed all mankind. And the Holy Koran also says whoever saves a person, it is as if he has saved all mankind.”

I still wonder how it felt to utter those words, representing a country whose own citizens have, in such large number and by their own admission (refer to the multiple public testimonies of Iraq Veterans against the War), killed not one innocent, but hundreds of thousands of innocent women, children and old people in Iraq, in Afghanistan, in Pakistan, etc. throughout the years, a country which even continued to do so while President Obama spoke in Cairo!

I never understood that in such a case one did not simply collapse and fall on the floor, out of unbearable shame... unless one did not understand the meaning of the words one was using.

Given I may not reasonably assume President Obama did not grasp the meaning of what he was saying, I must conclude that whatever changes some may expect that speech to bring, refusing to be disingenuous in front of the whole world must not be one of them.

yeolds Author Profile Page :

fknipfer2:

I thank you for pointing out that it is your belief that the Muslims were mutilating and killing for 1500 years.

It is notable that the establishment of the United States of America was based on genocide of the natives, wars of expansion agains Mexico and Spain, and almost constant war with minor powers since WWII, such as Granada, Panama, etc - kept loosing most of the major ones, like IraQ II, Afganistan and Korea.

So I think you should keep out of discuassions on start of wars.

fknipfer2 Author Profile Page :

I can still remember Neville Chamberlin's liberal statements "There will be peace in our time" and this was a bunch of rubbish and the Obama Cairo statements are a bunch of rubbish. These Moslem or Muslims whatever you want to call them have been killing, multilating,and causing wars for over 1500yrs. Now what makes you think they will stop now because of a glad handers statement.

daniel12 Author Profile Page :

Trend of globalization in the political/economic aspect.

Someone asked perhaps the most profound question with respect to globalization that can be asked: Which is the most and which the least likely political/economic organization to take hold as political/economic organization is expected to handle increasing numbers of people and why is it so that a particular type of political/economic organization is better than others in this respect if indeed a particular type of order is more successful than others in this regard?

What do the history books say with respect to this question? It seems whether we want to speak of ancient Egypt and the pharaohs, or China over its history, or India with its caste system, or empires such as the Roman, or the monarchs of the nations of Europe--too many examples from the history books in answer to this question to enumerate--we find that some form of despotism proves more reliable than any other type of political/economic organization conceivable. Emperor; king: tyrant; lord; Caesar;--the names are endless at describing the inevitable spread of power to a center as increasing numbers of people are expected to be contained in a political/economic order--if power has not been located around a center already.

History shows that exceptions to this rule--exceptions considered to be in the direction of liberty and away from despotism (and is there any other direction to go in?)--are justly celebrated and so rare that really only the history of Western civilization can be considered in the macro view to be a history which notices, brings to light these exceptions, is a history of exceptions to this rule. Take the rough stages of Western civilization: the Greeks and the battle of democratic Athens against autocratic/communistic Sparta; the disaster of republican Rome giving way to empire; the dark ages--dark precisely because when the only political/economic organizations are despotic they are not really noticed, or if noticed are realized to be the monotony of one king succeeding another, tyrant after tyrant overthrown, a row of pharaohs (not much progress made except it be a row of despots through time).

And then we have the renaissance in the West; the scientific revolution; the enlightenment; and of course the revolutions of especially the American colonies against Britain and the revolution at home in France. These two revolutions just mentioned are not least revolutions in being able to contain increasing numbers of people in a political/economic organization not despotic. Of course the revolution in France immediately gave way to Napoleon and his rule, but the mold by king upon king upon the people was broken--and dating from the French revolution France has moved more and more to being a political/economic organization for the people. The history of every other civilization than the West shows no comparable progress. We cannot speak of any other civilization than the West being a civilization, history, of breaking the rule of despots and bringing forth the complexity of a rule by the people for the people. In short, it is extremely difficult to organize, make profitable, human beings the more they increase in number, the more these increasing numbers are expected to be contained in a political/economic order.

Far more likely than a rule of people by the people--or other political/economic organizations appreciably removed from despotism--some form of despotism will take hold the more numbers of people expected to be contained in the political/economic order increases. And needless to say , this bodes ill for concepts such as globalization or instruments of order such as the United Nations. And with all this in mind we can see how unjustified it is for people to say, for example, that the U.S. is hypocritical because it says it is for freedom, etc. (all we mean by democracy) but then turns around and supports dictatorships. The U.S. would like for so many other nations to become democratic--liberal democracies not necessarily "liberal" as in left wing (for "liberal" in the U.S. is used interchangeably to mean a free and relatively well functioning democracy capable of being integrated with other advanced democracies or a left wing movement))--but the plain fact is so many peoples, civilizations even such as the Islamic, have not been able to handle increasing numbers of people without some form of despotism as its political/economic order. So the U.S. is really not hypocritical at all. In fact the U.S. is often hopeful to the point of gullibility, believing that democracy can just spread here and there.

And the left wing movements in Western civilization are no help at all. Perhaps they can even be considered responsible for all attempts by Western civilization nations to spread democracy whether by peace or war--for the left wing people in the West conceive a type of political/economic organization which is more difficult to establish in the West than "regular" more or less right wing "liberal" in the old sense (not left wing) democracy let alone establish among peoples not of the West, those with no real history of even democracy. To be clearer about left wing trends in Western civilization, those holding such views believe their socialistic ideas capable of operating not only over more people than "regular" democracy has managed to spread, they believe their views capable of being established over peoples with largely a history of despotism.

This bodes ill for the world. The West--many other people as well in fact--believe that democracy is not just a thing of the West anymore. All too many people in fact think that worldwide something of the French or American revolution can be made and that history the world over will become roughly as in Western history which so far can be considered THE history which is the overcoming of the despotic trend, a breaking out of that monotony of despot upon despot. In fact, all too many people--not least in the West--believe a worldwide socialistic revolution can be made, that democracy and capitalism need not come first, that socialism equals United Nations equals world peace. Let such people have their dreams. The rest of us should be firmly engaged with practicalities on the ground--for no political/economic organization has managed to leave the ground and rest in space.

daniel12 Author Profile Page :

Obama in the Muslim world. Or more directly, the truth or falsity of the statements of the U.S. with respect to the Islamic world.

The United States generally takes the position with respect to the Islamic world of saying that U.S. values, technological advancement are compatible with Islam and that the U.S. is only troubled by Islamic extremism and does not hold any grudge against the less extreme members of Islam. The U.S. says that it believes in freedom of religion and that any religion has a place in the U.S. so long as it does not descend into extremism. I contend that the position of the U.S. above is at best ignorance and at worst a flat out lie. In the United States--and the Western world generally--what has occurred where once man looked up to God and had more invested in God than in practicalities on the ground is an upsurge of practicality and what has come to be called science. Where once cathedrals were erected to God a new foundation and sensibility has sprung up.

The average Westerner lives in a world which is a man made instrumentality which has brought down as much God into Western civilization as possible by paradoxically not being really concerned about God at all and instead being concerned about structures of all types which stand out from nature and which even though circumscribing an individual's life, curtailing many freedoms, works out on average to give the individual a quite comfortable life and the possibility of conceiving more efficient and rewarding instrumentalities in the future. Whereas religion in general (as understood by the monotheistic religions) demands certain rituals for a bringing of God into one's life and an elevation of man to God--a reconciliation between man and God--the modern society in the West has each person as best as possible utilizing what he is capable of and fitting into a structure which demands daily to become more sophisticated, more capable of utilizing human capital, and ideally one day creating humans by biological methods who are super capable at creating instrumentalities which in turn create even more sophisticated humans...

Religion in such a political/economic situation as we see in the West becomes more and more a thing of the individual, something private no matter how much religion strives to remain an outward and visible organization, a meeting of like minds before God. What remains of true religion becomes "cultic behavior" and/or "religious fundamentalism". Religion watered down, less and less true religion, becomes going to church every now and then and more and more a thing to be kept to oneself--for if there is to be outward and visible organization it must become more and more modern instrumentality toward an increased efficiency of human capital and eventually the creation of more and more sophisticated humans. Where once man looked up and saw God (in Western civilization) now he looks up and conceives a better body politic--future comes more and more to be a better human society and not a city of God let alone God. A city of God does not resemble modern society let alone the direction man is heading. As a society becomes more and more sophisticated it becomes a city in which for all curtailing of freedom (rampant behavior as seen in less sophisticated societies) man comes to be breathed out as if petals on a flower, and there is no God worshipped--rather man is thankful for and to himself. The city born is one of man's humility and pride, vanity, jealousy and envy cast aside and a society of increasing mutual respect born, God in the details--and the details paradoxically explaining more and more, details reinforcing one another, a consistency seen, society firm and capable of being developed indefinitely...

And such a society is not at all compatible with the monotheistic religions--or possibly any religion for that matter. Certainly it is not compatible with Islam. To believe such is to be ignorant--or at worst a liar. I believe that with each passing day ignorance in this matter is being dispelled but that man cannot just come out into the open and state what is occurring. An indefinite period of lying occurs. But the best educated must see what is occurring--and the politics and economy of a modern society depend on the best educated, so...our officials are lying. Eventually one day the truth will have to be faced. And hopefully at least Christians and Jews will take it well...But as for Islam, that might be another problem. We should face the problem head on. It really is man against religion because he is more and more becoming able of taking care of himself.

yeolds Author Profile Page :

The speech was nice, imaginately composed, but totally meaningless without some new actions. The last 100 days' actions by the military, by the President and by the Congress totally negated any substance within the speech.

As the President of IRan and others pointed out after President Obama's previous addresses the words are nice but whhere is the action?

Recent Comments

  • TomW2:
    Bob "... am curious t...
  • farklol:
    Daniel: Thank you for...
  • daniel12:
    To Farklol from Daniel...
  • yeolds:
    TOM: you missed conne...
  • blund:
    Tom, I am curious to ...
  • farklol:
    To Daniel: You argue ...
  • TomW2:
    Daniel Excellent post...
  • TomW2:
    Bob Thanks for the di...
PostGlobal is an interactive conversation on global issues moderated by Newsweek International Editor Fareed Zakaria and David Ignatius of The Washington Post. It is produced jointly by Newsweek and washingtonpost.com, as is On Faith, a conversation on religion. Please send us your comments, questions and suggestions.