Guest Aloysius Posted January 29, 2009 Report Share Posted January 29, 2009 Here are two interesting perspectives on the idea of Obama giving a speech to the Muslim world. Both Hurlburt and Frum are opposed to the idea, though I find Hurlburt's arguments a lot more persuasive. (Please keep your responses respectful and related to the topic at hand - whether it's a good idea for Obama to give this speech) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chicopee John Posted January 29, 2009 Report Share Posted January 29, 2009 Here are two interesting perspectives on the idea of Obama giving a speech to the Muslim world. Both Hurlburt and Frum are opposed to the idea, though I find Hurlburt's arguments a lot more persuasive. (Please keep your responses respectful and related to the topic at hand - whether it's a good idea for Obama to give this speech) Why is this 'speech' such a big deal? Correct me if I am wrong but didn't Bush - on numerous occasions - talk about Islam as a loving religion? This is not even newsworthy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted January 29, 2009 Report Share Posted January 29, 2009 This thread is "so what? " Terrorists try to manipulate the alienation of the West and Muslims, to the point of joining up with them against us. Well, talking to the Muslim world is a good idea. Like John said, Bush also did it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Aloysius Posted January 29, 2009 Report Share Posted January 29, 2009 I think part of the reason why it's significant is that he's planning on giving it in a Muslim country. In addition to that, it's expected to be directed towards the Muslim world, whereas Bush's "Islam is a peaceful religion" comments were directed at the American people. I agree with Hurlburt that it's almost a waste of time to give this speech absent any substantive changes/accomplishments that would appeal to the Islamic world. I felt the same way about Obama's al-Arabiya interview: nice gesture, but not much there policy-wise. His commitment to listen to Israel & the Palestinians was pretty useless, as most people realize that the US has to be pushing both sides to make big compromises. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. T Posted January 29, 2009 Report Share Posted January 29, 2009 Thats ok al-Qaeda praises Obama. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. T Posted June 5, 2009 Report Share Posted June 5, 2009 I believe his speech was pro-palestinian, he didn't want to piss them off either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
heckofajobbrownie Posted June 5, 2009 Report Share Posted June 5, 2009 That'll teach you, Alo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Aloysius Posted June 5, 2009 Report Share Posted June 5, 2009 Ha. I'm happy to see that my thoughts have remained somewhat consistent. I wanted more substance to the speech, which Obama added by getting tougher on the settlement issue. And it's great that Hillary's on board: my own theory is that the personal animus between Netanyahu and the Clintons from the mid-90's helped make that possible. No one who was in the Clinton White House would trust Netanyahu, who signed onto interim peace agreements, then refused to implement them because he said the Palestinians weren't doing their part. Bibi's a really slimy dude. He was in the opposition while the Israeli gov't botched a war, the Prime Minister went down in flames due to corruption, and a key member of the ruling party was accused of sexually assaulting a female Israeli soldier. And he still couldn't win a plurality of seats in the Knesset. That tells you something. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted June 5, 2009 Report Share Posted June 5, 2009 Bill Clinton was guilty of sexually assaulting a few women in his circle, and getting serviced by Monica Lewinski and lying about it to Congress. What was your point again? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Aloysius Posted June 5, 2009 Report Share Posted June 5, 2009 You completely missed the point. Imagine if one party were plagued with a Lewinsky, an Iraq War, a Katrina, and an Abramoff scandal all at once but still managed to get more votes than its rival party. That's what happened in Israel, with the scandal-ridden Kadima party winning more seats in parliament than Netanyahu's Likud. There are a lot of reasons for that, chief among them being Netanyahu's relative unpopularity. His first stint as PM wasn't a great success, the economic austerity agenda he pushed as Finance Minister damaged his popularity with those Israelis uncomfortable with the cuts it made to disability and senior citizen benefits (the Israeli version of Leno had a skit where a Netanyahu lookalike put on boxing gloves and taunted an old man in a wheelchair), and many Israelis sided with Ariel Sharon in the two politicos' longstanding rivalry. Sharon left Likud because Netanyahu & others wouldn't support his disengagement plan. So Netanyahu's not in a strong political position, especially with his coalition including both rightist and left of center parties. He'd prefer to avoid the Palestinian issue, but Obama's right to push it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. T Posted June 5, 2009 Report Share Posted June 5, 2009 So after Obama shot his mouth off irresponsibly demanding an immediate halt to construction of Jewish settlements in the West Bank and Gaza. What is he going to do to back it up? At what price will Israel be forced to pay for the sake of peace? Since when did Israel's sovereignty become dictated by us? This is the kind of stuff that starts wars. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kosar_For_President Posted June 5, 2009 Report Share Posted June 5, 2009 Didn't know if anyone saw this. I am sure someone is going to put a spin on this one. It was a pointed message to Iran's Ahmadinejad, who has expressed doubts that 6 million Jews died at the hands of the Nazis. "He should make his own visit" to Buchenwald, Obama told NBC earlier Friday. He added: "I have no patience for people who would deny history." Obama Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kosar_For_President Posted June 5, 2009 Report Share Posted June 5, 2009 Paranoid delusions gone with a whimper. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
heckofajobbrownie Posted June 5, 2009 Report Share Posted June 5, 2009 That's for the upcoming Iranian elections. "Vote for the guy who isn't a quack." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest mz. Posted June 5, 2009 Report Share Posted June 5, 2009 They'll just tell you, Kosar, that Obama is visiting these places to get a better idea as to how to draw up his very own (that he has in the works, obviously). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Steve Posted June 7, 2009 Report Share Posted June 7, 2009 I agree with Hurlburt that it's almost a waste of time to give this speech absent any substantive changes/accomplishments that would appeal to the Islamic world. I felt the same way about Obama's al-Arabiya interview: nice gesture, but not much there policy-wise. Am I reading this wrong or are you saying we need to make more coscessions to "the Islamic world" and if so just what would those be? WSS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Aloysius Posted June 7, 2009 Report Share Posted June 7, 2009 Concession implies a zero-sum relationship between the US & "the Islamic world" - e.g., one in which our enacting a policy they favor means that we've somehow lost. I don't think that's what we're dealing with here, at least in the few policies I was thinking of. For instance, considering closing Guantanamo Bay: as Heck already explained, doing so wouldn't affect our security, but it would improve our image in the Muslim world. That, in turn, would have positive foreign policy and national security implications. Or pushing the Israeli-Palestinian peace process forward: that would benefit us, the Palestinians, Israel, and moderates in the Middle East who want to support us and provide a local check against political and religious extremism. That doesn't seem like a concession to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Steve Posted June 7, 2009 Report Share Posted June 7, 2009 Concession implies a zero-sum relationship between the US & "the Islamic world" - e.g., one in which our enacting a policy they favor means that we've somehow lost. I don't think that's what we're dealing with here, at least in the few policies I was thinking of. But, if as tyu say, the speech should have included these "concessions" in action the following two examples are already in play. For instance, considering closing Guantanamo Bay: as Heck already explained, doing so wouldn't affect our security, but it would improve our image in the Muslim world. That, in turn, would have positive foreign policy and national security implications. And I think Heck is wrong. I don't look at if from a security angle per se. I doubt there's a big chance of escape. Or pushing the Israeli-Palestinian peace process forward: that would benefit us, the Palestinians, Israel, and moderates in the Middle East who want to support us and provide a local check against political and religious extremism. That doesn't seem like a concession to me. Pretty clear Obama wants Israel to back down despite the lukewarm admonition that Hamas should give up terrorism. How much further do you propose? US take up arms against the settlers? WSS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Aloysius Posted June 7, 2009 Report Share Posted June 7, 2009 Israel freezing settlement expansion would be a shift back towards the peace process, as well as a prologue to the inevitable clash that will occur once Israel starts withdrawing from long-existing settlements as part of a peace deal (a real problem Israel's been hesitating to face head-on). It's only a first step, albeit a very positive one. And no, I don't think the US military should be part of it. It'll be tricky, but it's something that the IDF will have to take care of. The US's responsibility is to apply political pressure on the Israeli gov't so that it'll actually keep to the terms on any peace deals it has signed or will sign. The same thing goes with the Palestinians. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Steve Posted June 8, 2009 Report Share Posted June 8, 2009 War and chaos has been part of their lives for 2000 years their has to be another answer. Compromise and lip service have been around just as long and have had less effect. WSS There has to be a willingness to find a reasonable peace than can be sustained ,and Obama's speech was a good first step to get all of these leaders to the table to discuss it. How anyone can find fault with this is just trigger happy and the last few thousand years has shown that it doesnt work ,so let the dialogue begin. Also back to the subject, am I the only one who cares that he's greenlighted a nuclear Iran? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.