The President's speech in Egypt

[Mike Furley]

Might as well combine both politics & religion. What are your thoughts on it?

I found it to be arrogant and narcistic.

[zilla]

I thought it was good but also too deep for most American's that are used to simple sound bites from consevative radio and Fox News.

The approach of changing hearts and minds will work much better than trying to arrest everyone of them. That at the very core is what is wrong
with the Bush/Cheaney neo-con belief. Let's go over to the middle east and take them all on, forgetting it is not a nation state war but a war of beliefs and Gitmo and Iraq are the greatest recruiting tools Al Queda has.

Guys, the world can not be seen in simple black and white terms and I urge you to educate yourself on how complex the world really is.

[The Michigan Man]

Never underestimate Barry Hussein and his golden teleprompter, without which he is a bumbling idiot.

[Mike Furley]

I thought it was good but also too deep for most American's that are used to simple sound bites from consevative radio and Fox News.

The approach of changing hearts and minds will work much better than trying to arrest everyone of them. That at the very core is what is wrong
with the Bush/Cheaney neo-con belief. Let's go over to the middle east and take them all on, forgetting it is not a nation state war but a war of beliefs and Gitmo and Iraq are the greatest recruiting tools Al Queda has.

Guys, the world can not be seen in simple black and white terms and I urge you to educate yourself on how complex the world really is.


Must the man include his personal biography in every speech he gives? I used to think his Kool Aid drinking supporters were responsible for the Messiah comparisons, but it turns out he has the "God Complex" all by himself.
Complete narcism.

I also thought his speech was more lecture than diologue-esque in tone. Bush may have been cocky in a locker room towel snapping kind of way, but Obama has "the smartest prick in the room" arrogance trophy all to himself.

As for Gitmo and Iraq being recruiting tools - funny how Al Qaeda had no trouble recruiting 19 hijackers to attack us on 9/11 prior to either Iraq or Gitmo.

Also, its kind of funny how any Muslim roots talk for BHO during the campaign was off limits but it effortlessly oozes out of him now when it suits his purpose.

As with all things he does, I hope it turns out well - I just don't think it will.

[Wolvrin704]

I am growing more and more wary of this man. Everytime I turn around it seems we have a new man leading us as he reinvents himself. He tries to be everything to everyone and emphasize with our problems and issues. Who is the real Obama?

[Medic]

I thought it was good but also too deep for most American's that are used to simple sound bites from consevative radio and Fox News.


It's always a good way to appeal to another point of view by being a condescending asshole (/sarcasm off)

Those people are laughing their asses off at Barak Obama. "What a prude" probably echoes through 99% of the evening dinners and political events. The guy honestly thinks he is going to undo 2000 years of hatred towards the west in 4 years of sweet talking and appeasement. Good luck with that.

[gator]

As for Gitmo and Iraq being recruiting tools - funny how Al Qaeda had no trouble recruiting 19 hijackers to attack us on 9/11 prior to either Iraq or Gitmo.

It's always a good way to appeal to another point of view by being a condescending asshole (/sarcasm off) - Medic

Good points both. What has worried me recently is BHO's stance about Israel. Our only ally in the area, and we're now sticking it to them to pacify the Muslim community? I know not all Muslims want to kill us, but let's just review Jewish vs Muslim cultures real quick: which culture seriously oppresses their women, which culture fosters extremist that walk into crowded areas with bombs strapped to their bodies, which side rejected every concession and violated every treaty Israel was willing to accept during the peace talks of the Clinton years. Muslims, at this point, aren't simply an example of being diverse or different, they have a second rate view of civilization.

To those points that Muslims need to address to get in line with the rest of the civilized world, Obama was very weak today, IMO. He didn't take a strong stance for women's liberation, terrorism, or Iran's pursuit of nuclear weapons. Why not? I don't know the exact answer, but I kind of think Obama didn't throw down the gauntlet because he knows they won't change a damn thing. As long as he doesn't take a hard stance, their activities can't appear to be a direct defiance. I wish to God that all it took was a good sit down meeting to reason with these people and get acceptable terms all the way around. Truth is, like someone said previously, they've fightning over there for 2000 years. Neither side (Jews/Muslims) likes each other, but Jews have refrained from just wasting those countries even though they've had the capability for some time. On the other hand, you have a Muslim culture that openly advocates the annihilation of Israel and is currently seeking nuclear weapons. Just sounds like BHO is on the wrong side of this one to me. I just keep remembering that most of the WTC hijackers were from Saudi Arabia, and I just don't care to be their friend until they put the screws to the terrorist. If Obama's speech had been more about making that point, I would have been much more supportive.

[zilla]

It's always a good way to appeal to another point of view by being a condescending asshole (/sarcasm off)

Those people are laughing their asses off at Barak Obama. "What a prude" probably echoes through 99% of the evening dinners and political events. The guy honestly thinks he is going to undo 2000 years of hatred towards the west in 4 years of sweet talking and appeasement. Good luck with that.

So 99% huh? I guess you have not taken the time to see how his speech was received have you?

[Wolvrin704]

So 99% huh? I guess you have not taken the time to see how his speech was received have you?

With mixed reviews, but you're talking a small minority of people's opinions.

[goblue]

I think Obama is playing a risky game. He's hoping that now that he's nice to the muslims they won't mess with us. This will only embolden them and make another terrorist attack against the U.S. more likely. Cause now that we're friends with them a retaliation for one of their attacks will now be less severe.

And if he doesn't have policy to back up his words, the muslims will just be more disappointed in us then before. Netanyahu has already refused to endorse a Palestinian state and said settlement construction will continue. And I really don't blame Netanyahu. With Hamas in control of the palestinians and Iran threatening to blow Israel off the face of the earth and at the same time aquiring nuclear power, the last thing Israel wants to do is appear weak.

[zilla]

"This will only embolden them and make another terrorist attack against the U.S. more likely. Cause now that we're friends with them a retaliation for one of their attacks will now be less severe. "


And you back this up with what facts? Also it is very clear you did not take the time to listen to the speech. Where does it state we are friends with extremists?

[zilla]

With mixed reviews, but you're talking a small minority of people's opinions.

So you agree the 99% claim is a joke too. Good for you.

[osusteve]

Let us not forget the reason why Hamas (a terrorist organization) is in charge of Palestine today. President Goerge W.Bush longed for a world of liberty, freedom and democracy. He pushed for "free elections" in Palestine. The people, to his dismay, voted for Hamas. The people in Lebanon largely voted for Hezbollah (another terorist organization). We'll see what happens to the Iraq democracy experiment when we leave there.

The people in the Middle East look at the United States and feel that we put our personal interests ahead of our ideals. The most vicious regime in the region is Saudi Arabia (where most of the 9-11 hijackers came from). You never hear our leaders pushing for democracy in the Saudi kingdom. We look past their endless human rights abuses, beheadings of innocents, etc. because they are usually willing to help supply us with cheap oil.

I have little hope that President Obama will have much more success in the middle east than President Bush. However, his strategy cannot be any worse.

[zilla]

Let us not forget the reason why Hamas (a terrorist organization) is in charge of Palestine today. President Goerge W.Bush longed for a world of liberty, freedom and democracy. He pushed for "free elections" in Palestine. The people, to his dismay, voted for Hamas. The people in Lebanon largely voted for Hezbollah (another terorist organization). We'll see what happens to the Iraq democracy experiment when we leave there.

The people in the Middle East look at the United States and feel that we put our personal interests ahead of our ideals. The most vicious regime in the region is Saudi Arabia (where most of the 9-11 hijackers came from). You never hear our leaders pushing for democracy in the Saudi kingdom. We look past their endless human rights abuses, beheadings of innocents, etc. because they are usually willing to help supply us with cheap oil.

I have little hope that President Obama will have much more success in the middle east than President Bush. However, his strategy cannot be any worse.

And to add to these FACTS (thank you by the way for stating facts) the people of Palestine and Lebanon elected these terriorist groups mainly because of their views of the U.S. and policy of GWB. The end game of Al Queda is not to rule America but to use the United States to further their agenda of having their kind in control of the middle east governments. The war in Iraq and such things as Gitmo play right into Al Queda's plan.

I urge you all to read "Against All Enemies".

[Medic]

And to add to these FACTS (thank you by the way for stating facts) the people of Palestine and Lebanon elected these terriorist groups mainly because of their views of the U.S. and policy of GWB. The end game of Al Queda is not to rule America but to use the United States to further their agenda of having their kind in control of the middle east governments. The war in Iraq and such things as Gitmo play right into Al Queda's plan.

I urge you all to read "Against All Enemies".

Based on that logic we should leave the Middle East altogether and assume the radicals will just go away.

[zilla]

Based on that logic we should leave the Middle East altogether and assume the radicals will just go away.


A very simplistic reply I have grown to expect from you.

[Wolvrin704]

And to add to these FACTS (thank you by the way for stating facts) the people of Palestine and Lebanon elected these terriorist groups mainly because of their views of the U.S. and policy of GWB. The end game of Al Queda is not to rule America but to use the United States to further their agenda of having their kind in control of the middle east governments. The war in Iraq and such things as Gitmo play right into Al Queda's plan.

I urge you all to read "Against All Enemies".

The main reason they elected those groups was in a large part due to their humanitarian efforts of giving food, supplies and providing social services. Of course these groups realized years ago that to provide such services would integrate themselves with the people and guess what, it works. Not unlike the Dems here in the US, promise the moon and the stars to the people and they'll elect you. People need to realize theres no such thing as a free lunch, someone has to pay for it.

[amazinblue]

Good points both. What has worried me recently is BHO's stance about Israel. Our only ally in the area, and we're now sticking it to them to pacify the Muslim community? I know not all Muslims want to kill us, but let's just review Jewish vs Muslim cultures real quick: which culture seriously oppresses their women, which culture fosters extremist that walk into crowded areas with bombs strapped to their bodies, which side rejected every concession and violated every treaty Israel was willing to accept during the peace talks of the Clinton years. Muslims, at this point, aren't simply an example of being diverse or different, they have a second rate view of civilization.

IMO, Obama threw Israel under the bus - and, by the view of Hillary Clinton, she's going to be in the same position as Secretary of State as Colin Powell was.

I can accept that "laying down an olive branch" can be a good thing. And, the start of a new day can offer promise for many. The thing that I consider is this - the ideal which drives fundamentalist Islamic extremists is the complete and utter demolition of western thinking and culture. I do believe that these factions will always have a presence - especially in parts of the world where education is not a significant priority or available to most in a country or society.

Several have suggested various books to read - and I'd like to offer my own suggestion - "End of Faith" by Sam Harris. There is no doubt that every faith has had "it's good and bad moments" - but, in the 21st century, it does seem that the financial resources are available to extremist groups to recruit and get their point across.

As a country, we may offer an olive branch with one hand - but, should carry a very solid stick in the other. What concerned me was the apparent lack of a "call for action" by Obama. Perhaps I didn't hear it - but, I wonder what suggestions or actions he requested of the governments that heard his speech in Cairo or in Germany today.

I view this as puppet diplomacy. There is no conviction to his stance. The world is gray - and whether we considers ourselves white or black - we have an ideal to communicate and follow. I personally feel that individual accountability - individual freedom - individual rights - and equality under common law is a good course to take. I do not see any vision that Obama and his Cabinet are establishing - no doctine for foreign policy. North Korea is testing long range missiles capable of carrying nuclear warheads - Pakistan was infuriated by his remarks on the campaign trail - there is no substance to support the rhetoric.

I'm drawn back to the end of World War II and the conversations between Kennedy / Kruschev - when the appearace of "working together" just increased the commitment that governments / organizations we opposed grew stronger.

The next four years will be very interesting...

[zilla]

"I'm drawn back to the end of World War II and the conversations between Kennedy / Kruschev - when the appearace of "working together" just increased the commitment that governments / organizations we opposed grew stronger."


Read One Minute To Midnight. Kennedy and Kruschev talking together saved the planet from a war hungry Castro. Also has great points on the current fight we have with Al Queda and how a mutual assured destruction is not a deterrent with them. Man what a great book.

[amazinblue]

"I'm drawn back to the end of World War II and the conversations between Kennedy / Kruschev - when the appearace of "working together" just increased the commitment that governments / organizations we opposed grew stronger."


Read One Minute To Midnight. Kennedy and Kruschev talking together saved the planet from a war hungry Castro. Also has great points on the current fight we have with Al Queda and how a mutual assured destruction is not a deterrent with them. Man what a great book.

Zilla,

I'll try to check it out - I've got quite a few books to get to first. And, IMO, Castro was simply a puppet for the Soviet government trying to do to the US what the US was doing to them - specifically, develop allies in a region that permitted placing of weapons to deter actions on the "other government's" part. The US had bases in Turkey, which were withdrawn / removed after the Cuban Missile Crisis - and the Soviet government realized the only -or one of a very few places - where they could place missiles easily capable of reaching the US was Cuba. Castro was an exceptionally bright politician and knew where he could get the best deal - no doubt, Kruschev and the Russians made it as sweet as possible.

Castro "war hungry"? Who was he going to attack? Jamaica? The Dominican Republic? Haiti? The Bahamas? Puerto Rico? Castro was "power hungry" - he wasn't "war hungry".

In WWII, it is often said how Soviet intelligence provided Stalin with more detailed intelligence about the atomic bomb than Truman / Roosevelt ever provided to him. Stalin was committed to success, and though he often would "shake hands" in agreement - those handshake agreements weren't worth anything. Much as the German / Russian "non-agression" pact made in 1939. It served a purpose until one side felt it no longer served its interests.

I feel the same will be true with Obama's "policies" - what he's saying may serve his own "purpose" - unfortunately, there is nothing enforceable - nor anything that compels either party to act in a proactive manner to achieve some type of ends.

I'm curious as to what the career military leadership thinks about what he's been saying. It won't come out for a while - but, I'm pretty sure there's a fair amount of concern. IMO, what we're seeing - or will see in about two years - will be the equivalent of Chamberlain's guarantee of "Peace for Our Time". Less than a year later - WW II began. I'm just wondering what's going to happen in twelve months time...

[Seger]

Totally agree Furley. This guy is a globalist at heart and will continue to play the "world president" role as he was referred to by some after the election. He truly has the God complex worse than any doctor ever had. As he told a Hollywood crowd at a fundraiser a few weeks ago, "You haven't seen anything yet." I can assure you that it will not be good.