Obama's Cairo Speech

[Burgold]

I will admit it's tough. Time, events and people make me want to throw up my hands more and and more and threaten to make me want to give up on us, but there is still more beauty in this world (and in humanity) than evil despite our very best efforts.

Still, it's hard not to get cynical and sour and not to keep shrinking your focus (compassion) until your telescope becomes an electron microscope.

[Pedro]

I will admit it's tough. Time, events and people make me want to throw up my hands more and and more and threaten to make me want to give up on us, but there is still more beauty in this world (and in humanity) than evil despite our very best efforts.

Still, it's hard not to get cynical and sour and not to keep shrinking your focus (compassion) until your telescope becomes an electron microscope.

Anything is possible to the young if the old nurture, educate and empower them.

That being said just reading the debate in this thread is cause for optimism. Bar the odd one or two everyone is saying basically the same thing, just using different words. Of course no matter our ties it's much easier for us to kind of agree than it is for many of those who live it every day.

Once the outside world can agree I'm pretty sure those people directly affected will too. That's real power and your President is taking real steps to achieve what has at times appeared impossible. Thank you for electing him, I hoping this is the start of many world changing and uniting events.

EDIT: Oh and what a great thread to drop into first while doing a driveby on my way from the Stadium to RBN :applause:

[Smoot Point Really]

In general, it was a fine speech... On the other hand... Philosophically, I think it was lib-dem politics 101 (just on the world scale)... "The problems aren't the people themselves, the problems are these external forces"... The more you blame "fringe" elements and avoid the real issues, the less sincere you really look. We'll see how Iraq is in 5-10 years... Iraq is substance, speeches are just speeches.

[Vicious]

The fact of the matter is most of the hijackers that attacked us on 9/11 were from Saudi Arabia. The industrial world feeds tyrants, dictators, monarchies and oligarchies with its thirst for oil. They use that money, transform it into power and oppress their subjects, who are the poor. The poor turn to religion, they have nothing else. They are given nothing but a promise of eternal glory, while in this human life a huge weight funded by oil presses them down against the bottom of the barrel. They know what funds the beast and keeps their overlords fat and prosperous, the United States and other oil consuming countries. It never was about religion. It was always about the have and the have nots, it always is.

[Toe Jam]

What is "Yes, We Can" in Arabic?

[SkinsHokieFan]

The fact of the matter is most of the hijackers that attacked us on 9/11 were from Saudi Arabia. The industrial world feeds tyrants, dictators, monarchies and oligarchies with its thirst for oil. They use that money, transform it into power and oppress their subjects, who are the poor. The poor turn to religion, they have nothing else. They are given nothing but a promise of eternal glory, while in this human life a huge weight funded by oil presses them down against the bottom of the barrel. They know what funds the beast and keeps their overlords fat and prosperous, the United States and other oil consuming countries. It never was about religion. It was always about the have and the have nots, it always is.

To be honest though, when you look at AQ in particular, most of them are educated, wealthy and actually do live the good life.

The poor are the ones being killed (such as in Gaza) In the case of AQ in particular, they were all very educated and from wealthy families, and the hijackers themselves weren't exactly chopped liver

[PeterMP]

By your logic Japan's attack onr Peral Harbor wasn't the agressive act of WWII, It was rather Roosevelt who was the agressor for not selling our scrape medal and oil to Japan?..

It doesn't matter what Roosevelt did, Japan attacked first. Not many Americans would agree Japan was actually fighting a defensive war against the US as the agressor based on how that war started. If your not arbitrary in your definitions you must come to the same conclusion.

Two problems with your description. (1) the UN troops were there on Egyptions territory at Egypts request and for Egyptions protection because of the 56 unprovoked invasion of Egypt by Israel as part of the conspiracy to steal the Suez Canal. Asking for them to be withdrawn was well within Egypts rights.

(2) The Egyptions did not "blockade" the Israili port of Eiliat. They didn't mine Israel's port, nor did they commit a fleet of ships to stop Israeli shipping in Israeli waters, which would have been an act of war. Rather Egypt closed the Straits of Tiran to Israeli shipping. That's a narrow 1 mile strait between Saudi and Egypt well within Egypts territorial waters. I agree that was Israel's causis beli. I agree it made the Israeli position significantly more difficult, I disagree that allows anyone to claim the resulting 67 war was a defensive one on Israel's behalf. Or that Egypt which was caught by suprise by Israel's first attack were actually the agressors.

A few points:

1. You are right about Japan. I have pointed the same thing out several times with respect to why Japan attacked Pearl Harbor in different threads (usually in the context of understanding why our enemies attack us).

2. Ethically though I think there is a clear difference. Our actions vis-a-vis Japan were designed to stop/slow their aggression to other countries. Egypt's actions had one goal, to destroy Isreal. A negotiation could have occurred that would have restored US shipments to Japan (e.g. Japan bringing all of their troops back home and stop attacking China and their other neighbors) that would not have resulted in the destruction of Japan.

3 More importantly are the legal ramifications of the action. To my knowledge, Roosevelt wasn't under ANY legal obligation with respect to selling oil or steel to Japan based on agreements with Japan or international law. That isn't true for Egypt. There was an international Suez agreement that Egypt was violating with respect to stopping Isreali ships and ships bound to and coming from Isreal. In addition, they had a treaty with respect to keeping British troops in Egypt (prior to the Suez crisis) that they had agreed to (independent of the internation Suez agreement) that they violated.

Now technically (I will say technically because why they didn't directly fire shots they certainly used force to stop shipping going to Isreal throught the Suez canal, which was against international law/agreements so if you think about it in terms of actually firing shots, you are right, but if you said the Egyptians used force first I'd argue you were right), the Egyptians didn't fire the first shots, but if people are going to violate international law and treaties without any repurcussions, then why bother to have them?

***EDIT***

Personally, I support Israel withdrawing to her original borders w/ us acting as direct guaranteors of her security (even if that means stationing Marines in Israel). Then simply returning the "occupied" territories to their original countries at which point in time they can negotiate an end game for the Palestanians (w/ interanational aid/help).

[Vicious]

To be honest though, when you look at AQ in particular, most of them are educated, wealthy and actually do live the good life.

The poor are the ones being killed (such as in Gaza) In the case of AQ in particular, they were all very educated and from wealthy families, and the hijackers themselves weren't exactly chopped liver

It's not like Benjamin Franklin was not well off. The desperation and hate comes from the bottom.

[JMS]

A few points:

1. You are right about Japan. I have pointed the same thing out several times with respect to why Japan attacked Pearl Harbor in different threads (usually in the context of understanding why our enemies attack us).

The why is a justification. How or why they justified it, doesn't change the fact that they decided to take the offensive and change they dynamic of the relationship. They had a choice, and they choose to attack.

2. Ethically though I think there is a clear difference. Our actions vis-a-vis Japan were designed to stop/slow their aggression to other countries. Egypt's actions had one goal, to destroy Isreal. A negotiation could have occurred that would have restored US shipments to Japan (e.g. Japan bringing all of their troops back home and stop attacking China and their other neighbors) that would not have resulted in the destruction of Japan.

I'm not drawing a parrellel between Japan and Israel behavior or philosophy. I'm just stating in both Pearl Harbor and the Six Day War, countries decided to go on the offensive based on a practical evaluation of their positions. Neither country can subsequently claim they were actually not the agressor. Both had choices, hard choices to be sure, but both choose to attack.

It was claimed the six day war was a defensive war by the Israeli's a defensive war in which they sneak attacked their oponenets and more than seized lands which more than doubled the size of their country.. That characteration is what I was objecting too, the historical reality is Israelis took the offensive. Now if you want to make the argument it was justified, that's a different discussion and a much more abstract and neuanced one.

3 More importantly are the legal ramifications of the action. To my knowledge, Roosevelt wasn't under ANY legal obligation with respect to selling oil or steel to Japan based on agreements with Japan or international law. That isn't true for Egypt. There was an international Suez agreement that Egypt was violating with respect to stopping Isreali ships and ships bound to and coming from Isreal. In addition, they had a treaty with respect to keeping British troops in Egypt (prior to the Suez crisis) that they had agreed to (independent of the internation Suez agreement) that they violated.

First off Israel didn't attack Egypt for closing the Suez Canal to her shipping. Nor did Egypt have a specific treaty with Israel which expressly granted Israeli shipping the right to use their canal. After all Egypt had just seized the canal about a decade earlier from Britain.

Nor were their any British Troops in the UN force on the Sinai within Egypts boarders. The troops were Indian and Canadian along with Yugoslavian , because Britian along with France had played a conspiratorial role with Israel in trying to seize the canal in 57.

The UN troops were on Egyption territory at Egypts request, and for Egypts security. Today we know they were removed because Egypt was given word by the Soviets of an imminent Israeli attack. An attack typicaly reffered to as fictitious attack.

Fact is when Egypt told the UN their mission was over, the UN asked ISrael if they could redeploy on the Israeli side of the boarder. Israel declined that. Just as Israel had declined it when the UNEF force was first deployed to the region post the 57 war.

Now technically (I will say technically because why they didn't directly fire shots they certainly used force to stop shipping going to Isreal throught the Suez canal, which was against international law/agreements so if you think about it in terms of actually firing shots, you are right, but if you said the Egyptians used force first I'd argue you were right), the Egyptians didn't fire the first shots, but if people are going to violate international law and treaties without any repurcussions, then why bother to have them?

Fact is Israel and Syraia had been firing pot shots at each other on the northern boarder for years. Egypt and Syria had signed a mutual protection pact at the Soviet's suggestion to dissuade Israeli agression against Syria. So if you try to isolate violence from the Initial Israeli attack, it's pretty difficult to place blame.

[JMS]

I love idealists,they bring balance by tipping the scales;)

I would argue that accurately recounting historical events is not Idealism.

I would also argue it doesn't take much creativity to find legitamate grevances on both sides of the troubles, all it takes is honesty and an accurate understanding of the events which have transpired.

[Burgold]

I would argue that accurasy in itself is subjective. I dare you to find anything which is flawlessly accurate and objective.

[JMS]

The notion we (or any nation) can bring balance is the height of conceit.

We've given one side of this dispute unprecidented unilateral support for six decades. But now you think it's the "height of conceit" to seek BALANCE?

Clearly if we can unbalance, we can also clearly seek more balance. But I'm not even aguing for balanced in our aid or support. I'm just asking for honesty in our recollection of historical events which really aren't in dispute among serious scholars. Just the acknowledgement that the other side has valid issues.

[JMS]

I would argue that accurasy in itself is subjective. I dare you to find anything which is flawlessly accurate and objective.

So is that an argument to ignore history, reasoning, and precident? Or is it an argument to try to understand more....

Frankly I don't think a micrometer can be used to determine blame throughout this complex issue. There is blame enough on both sides of this issue. I think history is most valuable to show both sides have valid grevances. Once you achieve that goal, perhaps you can move the ball even further.

[JMS]

I would argue that accurasy in itself is subjective. I dare you to find anything which is flawlessly accurate and objective.

Don't you owe me 5 positive observations on the Palistinians?

[twa]

Frankly I don't think a micrometer can be used to determine blame throughout this complex issue. There is blame enough on both sides of this issue. I think history is most valuable to show both sides have valid grevances. Once you achieve that goal, perhaps you can move the ball even further.

Why is blame or even balance a issue?

Simply provide the opportunity for compromise and negotiation IF the parties are willing...if they are not,why bother

[techboy]

Don't you owe me 5 positive observations on the Palistinians?

You never met his initial criteria.

The Palestinians and Arabs in the 40's, 50's, 60's and 70's were not open to fair negotiations with Israel

That's not pro-Israel, it's anti-Palestine, so you only got four.

What's more, he was talking about your posting history, so in reality, you have zero, since none of that involved quotes from your previous posts.

[JMS]

Why is blame or even balance a issue?

A balanced or historically accurate understanding of history is key to helping the two sides understand each other.

In order to achieve a compromise the first thing you have to establish is reason. First thing that happens anytime you discuss the issues with either of these parties is they recite the long lists of grevences excluding the other guy's list......

If you listen to it, it's actually a manifesto of why their unreasonableness is justified. Both sides play this game. I agree with you that history is not particularly relavent for afixing blame. I don't think fixing blame is particularly relavent. But history is a good tool to at least show each side has grevances. Which I think is a valuable thing.

Just heard. Netanyahoo will come out in favor of a two state solution. That much is a done deal...

Simply provide the opportunity for compromise and negotiation IF the parties are willing...if they are not,why bother

The crisis requires more than that. The crisis requires a fair broker. Part of our role filling that gap goes beyond just moving the two parties into the room. It will also include holding both party's responsible for the deals they've agreed too.

[twa]

. It will also include holding both party's responsible for the deals they've agreed too.

Sounds like a recipe for disaster don't it ,and it is the international community's place..not ours

How?...economic sanctions or inserting troops" (that will be a big hit with the crowd:silly:)

Or just another way to siphon off funds.

[twa]

Are we attempting to provide balance or just impose peace through our solution?

Wouldn't a nation or organization w/o major self interests provide a better moderator for talks?

Goes back to the two parties themselves(or should I say three?(Hamas) wanting peace and being willing to work for it.

http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSTRE5571LS20090608?feedType=RSS&feedName=topNews&rpc=408

U.S. President Barack Obama wants "immediate" talks between the Palestinians and Israel to forge a comprehensive Middle East peace agreement, U.S. envoy George Mitchell said on Monday.

Mitchell, who is en route to the Middle East, said the aim of such talks was "a comprehensive peace and normalization of relations" between Israel and its neighbors, which would also serve "the security interests of the United States."

[PeterMP]

It was claimed the six day war was a defensive war by the Israeli's a defensive war in which they sneak attacked their oponenets and more than seized lands which more than doubled the size of their country.. That characteration is what I was objecting too, the historical reality is Israelis took the offensive. Now if you want to make the argument it was justified, that's a different discussion and a much more abstract and neuanced one.

First off Israel didn't attack Egypt for closing the Suez Canal to her shipping. Nor did Egypt have a specific treaty with Israel which expressly granted Israeli shipping the right to use their canal. After all Egypt had just seized the canal about a decade earlier from Britain.

1. My post has less to do with the six day war and more to do with the Canal Crisis (I connected two different arguments from two different post, w/o quoting both to make it clear I was making such a connection), but with respect to the Suez Canal at any point in time that Egypt closed it to Israeli bound shipping w/o discrimination by using force (which was the vast majority of this period in time) my argument holds.

2. They didn't have a specific treaty with Israel, but there was an international agreement, called the Suez Canal Convention, which essentially dictated free throw of shipping threw the canal, except for cases related to military/war issues. Egypt was blocking ALL Israeli shipping, including clearly humantarian aid. You might find this of interest:

http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract;jsessionid=3FA82F14AD8721DC31B2B6BE985ADFF5.tomcat1?fromPage=online&aid=1460820

3. I don't remember the dates, but I will assume wiki has it right (there are issues disputed according to the title, but this seems like a pretty basic historical fact and generally). According to it, Egypt abrogated the treaty they had with Britain in Oct. 1951. The attack for the Suez Crisis occurred in '56. Things flowed from there.

4. My point is even more general. You claim:

"the historical reality is Israelis took the offensive"

The fact of the matter is that it is more nuanced than that. The Egyptians used force to close the Suez canal to Israeli shipping and shipping of any country where the ship was directly involved in trade with Israel. That was/is against international law and required them to use force. You could clearly argue that was an offensive action. Israel fired the first shots, but it was the Egyptians that violated international law and resorted to the use of force first by closing the canal.

You say assigning blame is nuanced. Even declaring who took the first "offensive" action is nuanced. Technically speaking (in several cases), the Israelis fired the first shots, but you can easily argue that Egyptians first violated international law AND took the first offensive actions.

For your argument to be true, you essentially have to hold that there is no penalty for violating international agreements.

[JMS]

Sounds like a recipe for disaster don't it ,and it is the international community's place..not ours

Israel doesn't trust the international community to act as impartial on their behalf. Israel won't accept mediation unless we are a significant part of the package.

How?...economic sanctions or inserting troops" (that will be a big hit with the crowd:silly:)

I think you are confusing the words facilitating, aiding, and monitoring with imposing. I think imposing a solution will never work. Both sides have well documented authority issues. Both sides have the capability to ignore any solution which they disagree with. Besides you would need both sides to police their own radicals to ensure the deal stands.

No I think our role as fair broker, will be in hosting talks, recording the agreements, publizing the responsibilities, and fairly stating when one party is in violation of what they agreed too. Maybe helping the parties trying to find work arounds when bad thins happen.

Helping to create the environment where both sides can envision peace like in 1999. We start by tamping down the violence on both sides and trying to grow more modorates to assist us in the work.

[JMS]

1. My post has less to do with the six day war and more to do with the Canal Crisis (I connected two different arguments from two different post, w/o quoting both to make it clear I was making such a connection), but with respect to the Suez Canal at any point in time that Egypt closed it to Israeli bound shipping w/o discrimination by using force (which was the vast majority of this period in time) my argument holds.

I thought your argument points were valid and correct, they just weren't dealing specifically with the point I was trying to make. Generally that Israel has acted as the agressor in roughly half of the nine major wars she's fought in her sixty year history. It's patently false that she's always been on the defensive. Specifically in the 1967 war in which she doubled her territory and which the current boarder discussion is involved being a defensive war. It was an offensive war. It was a war in which Israel made a concious decision to attack her neighbors ( antagonists ) in a calulated effort to change the dynamic in the region to her favor. Which she did in a spectacular victory.

2. They didn't have a specific treaty with Israel, but there was an international agreement, called the Suez Canal Convention, which essentially dictated free throw of shipping threw the canal, except for cases related to military/war issues. Egypt was blocking ALL Israeli shipping, including clearly humantarian aid. You might find this of interest:

The Suez Canal convention or the Constantinople Convention of the Suez Canal was ratified in December 1888 and was between Great Britian, Germany, Austria-Hungary, Spain, France, Italy, the Netherlands, Russia and Turkey. Egypt didn't sign it or participate in the negotiation of it.

Not sure if you are even talking about the six day war but the legal justification for Israel invading in 1967 was Article 51 of the UN Charter.

http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract;jsessionid=3FA82F14AD8721DC31B2B6BE985ADFF5.tomcat1?fromPage=online&aid=1460820

looks like a good resource. I can't get into it, requires a username and password.

3. I don't remember the dates, but I will assume wiki has it right (there are issues disputed according to the title, but this seems like a pretty basic historical fact and generally). According to it, Egypt abrogated the treaty they had with Britain in Oct. 1951. The attack for the Suez Crisis occurred in '56. Things flowed from there.

The entire history is rather sorted. An Egyption Pasha, had this idea to re-build the canal. He borrowed heavily from Europe at poor terms to accomplish it too. So basically after he had completed it, or mostly completed it; the Pasha could no longer make his payments to the Europeans note holders. Britian moved in and took the egyption interest in the canal in exchange for paying the Pasha's debts. The French who actually engeneered and constructed the canal ( not funded it ) remained the majority owners. That was in the 1850's. Egypt was denied any ownership or economic benifit or interest, in the canal which they had bankrupted their country to building.

How why was it nationalized? In 1956 the United States and Britain pulled out of an agreement to fund a Dame in Egypt due ot Egypts recent overtures to the Soviet Union. Egyption President Nasser responded by nationalizing the Canal. His plan was to use the income from newly nationalized Canal to pay for the dam project.

The 56 war was a ploy for Britian and France to grab back the canal back from Egypt. They conspired with Israel offering her land in exchange for her participation. Egyptian land. Israel agreed to invade Egypt and threaten the Canal's shipping. Then within days Britian and France were to land troops in the Canal Zone to "protect" the canal from the hostil parties, namely Israel and Egypt.. Israel was to get to keep the Sinia, Britain and France would keep the Canal. The plan worked except for one detail. Eisenhower knew Britian and France could not have put together a military "peace keeping" force that quickly. We started poking around and the conspiracy unravelled. We refused to support their land grab and the parties were forced to withdrawl to their pre war boarders.

Israel's Operation Susannah, didn't score them any points with Eisenhower either.

4. My point is even more general. You claim:

"the historical reality is Israelis took the offensive"

The fact of the matter is that it is more nuanced than that. The Egyptians used force to close the Suez canal to Israeli shipping and shipping of any country where the ship was directly involved in trade with Israel. That was/is against international law and required them to use force. You could clearly argue that was an offensive action. Israel fired the first shots, but it was the Egyptians that violated international law and resorted to the use of force first by closing the canal.

I'm not trying to put words in your mouth. I just don't understand which conflict you are discussing anymore. the 56 war or the 67 war? 56 war was a land grab. It's cut and dry. Israel and her European allies were the agressors. they were branded such by the international community and forced to retreat from their il gotten gains. 67 war, Israel justification is less dismissable. As I've said one can reasonable argue justification in the 67 Israeli attack.... But Israel did attack first, they did conduct a sneak attack, and that sneak attack did result in their doubling the size of their country. Protecting their preparations for the 67 attack is what the captian of the ship, claims was the motivation behind the attack on the USS Liberty.

In 67 the cause of the war wasn't Egypt closing the Suez Canal which you keep alluding too. It was Egypt closing the Straight of Tiran a mile wide straight between Egypt and Saudi on the other side of the Sinia. That is what Israel pointed to as the Causis Belli for her 1967 invasion of Egypt, Syria and subsequently Jordan.

As for closing waters 1 mile off your shores to international shipping (Straight of Tiran) being a recognized act of war I don't think that's accurate. Israel currently has blockaded Gaza for years, Is that an act of war? Iran denied Iraq the ability to move shipping up the eufradies river under the Shah for decades, was that an act of war? Maybe to the Gazan's and the Iraqi's it is/was, but the international community is and was silent on these matters.

The United States recognizes a 20 mile zone around our country as US teritorial waters and doesn't allow international shipping or fishing there without permission. Is that an act of war?

Cuba claims 100 miles off her shores as her teritorial waters, which brings her waters right up to Miami. Is that an act of war?

You say assigning blame is nuanced. Even declaring who took the first "offensive" action is nuanced. Technically speaking (in several cases), the Israelis fired the first shots, but you can easily argue that Egyptians first violated international law AND took the first offensive actions.

For your argument to be true, you essentially have to hold that there is no penalty for violating international agreements.

Not exactly. Who took the first offensive action resulting in the war is not nuanced, It's determinative. The justification or not of that act is what is more nuanced.

I am not interested, in this discussion, affixing blame. I am not interested, in this discussion, for assessing justification. My point is significanly less ambitious. I am mearly noting the historic truth that Israel Invaded Egypt and Syria in a sneak attack in 1967. I am mearly noting justified or not, Israel chose to take the offensive and start that war, as she did in 56.

You can reasonable make the claim Israel was justified. It's a nuanced one, one which requires faith and trust in facts which are only today becomeing declassified. What you can't claim, is Israel was attacked first or Israel fought the war on the defensive. Those statements simple aren't true.

Israel struck first, Israel fought the entire war on three fronts on her opositions lands, and Israel systematically set about keeping those lands after her invasion, just as she tried to do in 56.

Again I am not saying Israel always attacked first. I'm just saying in 56 and 67 she did.

[Corcaigh]

The defeat of Hezbollah in Lebanese elections by the pro-West coalition suggests that some in the Muslim world are paying attention to Obama's message.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article6452810.ece

[jpyaks3]

The defeat of Hezbollah in Lebanese elections by the pro-West coalition suggests that some in the Muslim world are paying attention to Obama's message.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article6452810.ece

I wouldn't necessarily attribute it to that. This was an extremely corrupt election with both sides flooding the nation with money in attempts to buy votes. Here is a story on the Saudi's trying to buy votes.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/23/world/middleeast/23lebanon.html

[JMS]

The defeat of Hezbollah in Lebanese elections by the pro-West coalition suggests that some in the Muslim world are paying attention to Obama's message.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article6452810.ece

Hezbollah was projected to win those elections by a significant margine too. It's pretty spectacular. Then again Lebonon has never elected Hezbollah to actually form a government before so maybe the polls were off.