Obama's Nobel Peace Prize acceptance speech

[Tulane Skins Fan]

This is so simplistic and wrong, it is not even funny.

We all know SS is a good guy. And there's something positive to be said for "sticking to your principles." But SS doesn't realize that there's something negative to be said for "sticking to your principles in the face of counter-arguments, regardless of their merit."

[SnyderShrugged]

We all know SS is a good guy. And there's something positive to be said for "sticking to your principles." But SS doesn't realize that there's something negative to be said for "sticking to your principles in the face of counter-arguments, regardless of their merit."

OK, I'll ask you too. what is fundamentally different between the foreign policy of Bush and the foreign policy of Obama?

(I think you're a good guy too)

[Tulane Skins Fan]

OK, whats different? I'm OK with being open minded.

You could start with the fact that Obama inherited two wars, as opposed to started them. You could continue with the fact that they are two different wars. And you could go on forever about why they are different.

If you can't see the difference between Bush's war actions/decisions in Iraq and Afghanistan, and Obama's war actions/decisions in Iraq and Afghanistan, then you just don't want to see any differences, so you never will.

[SnyderShrugged]

You could start with the fact that Obama inherited two wars, as opposed to started them. You could continue with the fact that they are two different wars. And you could go on forever about why they are different.

If you can't see the difference between Bush's war actions/decisions in Iraq and Afghanistan, and Obama's war actions/decisions in Iraq and Afghanistan, then you just don't want to see any differences, so you never will.

Of course there are differences in circumstances, there are many years in between.

That isnt what we are discussing. I'm seeking the fundamental differences between the Obama vs. Bush foreign policy stances.

I realize there are nuances that are different, but I see core similarities in overall position.

[Mad Mike]

My contention with your original post, SS, was the perjorative term "twisted logic," more than that some of the rhetoric sounded similar to Bush.

Oh, come on. He did not say that. haven't you read his posts to me where the only thing he says was that Bush and Obama sound similar? I mean, that couldn't have been what I was talking about when I had my "tantrum".

[Tulane Skins Fan]

OK, I'll ask you too. what is fundamentally different between the foreign policy of Bush and the foreign policy of Obama?

(I think you're a good guy too)

Thanks.

Seriously though, if you wanted to just get down to nuts and bolts of it, Bush really and honestly believed that we were justified in starting a war preemptively. Whether he was right or wrong, that was a big part of his philosophy.

Obama does not appear to be anywhere near that philosophy, and has stated multiple times that war is only a necessary last resort. He seems to have evidence to back that up in that he did oppose the Iraq war before it started (which was different than Bush's feelings on it).

They really arent that close, except that they both believe that war can be necessary.

[GibbsFactor]

Hug it out ****es.

There is no difference in our foriegn policy.

There is, however, differences in the tact and finesse of our leader.

[Tulane Skins Fan]

Of course there are differences in circumstances, there are many years in between.

That isnt what we are discussing. I'm seeking the fundamental differences between the Obama vs. Bush foreign policy stances.

I realize there are nuances that are different, but I see core similarities in overall position.

But my point is that you are comparing apples and oranges and saying "they are both fruit!"

[twa]

You could start with the fact that Obama inherited two wars, as opposed to started them. You could continue with the fact that they are two different wars. And you could go on forever about why they are different.

If you can't see the difference between Bush's war actions/decisions in Iraq and Afghanistan, and Obama's war actions/decisions in Iraq and Afghanistan, then you just don't want to see any differences, so you never will.

Well in in the interest of fairness W had 9/11

Both of their first yrs were spent with different challenges to face.

Both I think handled foreign policy issues fairly well considering their unique circumstances.

btw I agree W could have presented better logical and well-thought examinations for his actions...I believe they were present,but never presented properly.

[Tulane Skins Fan]

Well in in the interest of fairness W had 9/11

Both of their first yrs were spent with different challenges to face.

Both I think handled foreign policy issues fairly well considering their unique circumstances.

btw I agree W could have presented better logical and well-thought examinations for his actions...I believe they were present,but never presented properly.

Yea, I don't mean to insinuate Bush didn't have very difficult decisions in front of him. I just don't think he made the best decisions when he was presented with those.

I don't doubt though that he was trying real hard to get it right. My complaint, like I said, was that he didn't really think things through. He didn't make the most logical decisions, IMO. He "went with his gut," so to speak; but at all times he thought it was what was best for the country.

[Predicto]

OK, whats different? I'm OK with being open minded.

I can't believe you are serious. Obama's foreign policy is not some amazing revolutionary new concept, but it is miles away from Bush's foreign policy. Obama is emphasizing engagement and multilateralism all over the globe.

Obama has drawn down in Iraq and upped the ante in Afganistan. He views the battle as a fight against Al Qaeda alone, not an effort to impose democracy on the Middle East by force. He is anything but a Bush/Chaney neo-con.

He has tried to engage with Iran using diplomacy rather than bluster. (it hasn't worked yet - it may never work, but then, bluster never worked either.)

He has put nuclear non-proliferation back on the table and reenaged the Russians on reducing the number of nuclear weapons.

Guantanamo may not be closed yet, but it is closing and the prisoners are getting trials in the US.

Ask twa whether Obama handled the coup in Honduras differently than Bush would have.

Ask yourself whether the missile defense battery would still be in Poland if Bush were still President.

Ask Benyamin Netanyahu whether there is any difference in the US/Israel relationship.

There are a ton of differences, and it only has been ten months.

[GibbsFactor]

But my point is that you are comparing apples and oranges and saying "they are both fruit!"

And they are both round, juicey and have seeds.

They do have different color skin.

[Predicto]

I realize there are nuances that are different, but I see core similarities in overall position.

Of course you do, but that has much more to do with SnyderShrugged and less to do with Obama or Bush.

You see the world as Pure Ron Paul Libertatian Disengagement vs. Everything Else. Of course they look the same to you.

[twa]

I wouldn't go using Honduras as a plus...but maybe that's just me:)

I do look forward to seeing how things shake out overall over time.

Different is not better by default,nor do good intentions matter much...only results.

[Predicto]

I wouldn't go using Honduras as a plus...but maybe that's just me:)

I do look forward to seeing how things shake out overall over time.

Different is not better by default,nor do good intentions matter much...only results.

I didn't say it was a "plus," I said it was different. And it was. Very different. I presume you agree.

(I think it was a plus, but you don't have to agree with me.)

[twa]

Not so different in result:),but yes I think they took a firmer approach.

Both you and SS are correct, the policies differ ...yet are the same end game.

The goals haven't changed,only the tactics

[Dan T.]

OK, I'll ask you too. what is fundamentally different between the foreign policy of Bush and the foreign policy of Obama?

(I think you're a good guy too)

As to the conduct of the wars, here it is in a nutshell:

Obama: Ready, aim, aim, aim, aim, aim, fire.

Bush: Ready, fire, aim.

[Jumbo]

Thanks, Predicto. Very nice of you to say. For a leftie, you rock!

And for the record, I do try to stay as moderate as possible but sometimes these forums can bring the worst out in a person...

That was a good post, USS, as have been a few others. I agree with the similarity being claimed, but don't think it's much of a big deal. Obama clearly wasn't some dove and made it clear all along that while he had serious criticisms of Iraq policy choices from the beginning, he viewed the conflict in Afghanistan differently (as did millions of other Americans and much of the rest of the world).

During his campaign, I thought him almost hawkish for a radical commie lib and it seemed obvious to me that in a time of war he wasn’t going to be some "peacenik pres" and instead intended to project commitment and military resolve while still disagreeing with many Bush policies, regionally. His offers a general explanation and rationalization of why war will still happen in this world from U.S. perspective.

It could be said to reflect almost ANY previous presidents general views on that topic, not just some ‘Mirroring of Bush” and then be used as some implied vindication of Bush (particularly of his Iraqi policies which have been the huge source of most bones of contention war-wise with critics).

I certainly don’t see this speech as any indictment of Obama as some hypocrite. There are other events that lend themselves well to that contention. And I also thought the Stewart send-up was great and relevant in a more general sense. By my standards, a cognitively competent person shouldn't have too much difficulty seeing these matters without contradiction.

So I think that denial of a similarity to Bush (or most presidents) is misplaced but that in this case it’s a very tepid observation. Trying to make much out of it would be rather lame and weak (not including SHF’s comments, which I never find lame or weak).

I have also found it typical that in many posts since the original Nobel announcement read a “tone” where Obama is actually being “blamed” foe those “morons” giving him the award in the first place. As many have noted, the award has been highly suspect and easily open to criticism more than once over the years.

I also agree with every single word in the rest of your post.

[SkinsHokieFan]

(not including SHF’s comments, which I never find lame or weak).

.

Awesome!

Because I find my words lame and weak all the time

Haha

[SnyderShrugged]

As to the conduct of the wars, here it is in a nutshell:

Obama: Ready, aim, aim, aim, aim, aim, fire.

Bush: Ready, fire, aim.

LOL!! Best post of the day!

[Mad Mike]

aww, he's still mad.

It's awesome that you cant see that you came in all barnstorming, posted something that didnt relate to any of the thread conversation (your spouting on about ideology, etc) and then cant even acknowledge that you were off in your perception.

The best part is that you actually agree with us who are saying he's sounding a lot like Bush!

You crack me up! The temper tantrums and overall "Look at me, I'm angry!!!" posts from you really help make things more fun here.

You're my favorite angry attention whore.

And you are still acting like an ass.

As was pointed out, your first post accused Obama of "twisted logic". That's a matter of record and that is what I responded to. If you go back and read my posts, that is very clear. Instead of debating that point you have attacked me personally over several posts in an effort to minimalize my opinions without having to resort to anything resembling logic or intelligence.

Back to the point of twisted logic. Still waiting for you to tell me who made this "Bushian" statement:

"As our enemies have found we can reason like men, so now let us show them we can fight like men also."

And I would love to hear your argument as to how Bush would have put an 18 month timetable on Afghanistan since you think his foreign policy is so similar.

The bottom line is you don't want to talk about the issues at all because you know you don't have a leg to stand on. It's much easier to accuse me of having a "tantrum" instead. After all, I'm not Mr. Popular on this board and you can play that up by trying to make me look bad.

Go ahead. Play it up. I'm often rude. I don't give a crap about winning popularity contests so you wont catch me doing the glad handed, fake smile, politician's bull **** that you do with anyone who will agree with you.

So yeah, keep playing that angle. I'm sure it will work for many on the board. But it wont change the fact I'm still right.

And BTW: Since I know you won't answer my question. The above "war hawk" quote was by Thomas Jefferson.

Note to mods: I'm doing my best to keep things civil in this thread despite repeated antagonism by SS.

[SnyderShrugged]

I can't believe you are serious. Obama's foreign policy is not some amazing revolutionary new concept, but it is miles away from Bush's foreign policy. Obama is emphasizing engagement and multilateralism all over the globe.

Bush emphasized both engagement and multilateralism as well (though Obama did a better job with it, definitely)

Obama has drawn down in Iraq and upped the ante in Afganistan. He views the battle as a fight against Al Qaeda alone, not an effort to impose democracy on the Middle East by force. He is anything but a Bush/Chaney neo-con.

Bush had already planned for and started the draw down in iraq, and they both think to impose democracy on the middle east by force (otherwise, why are our troops still there?) Obama is a pretty good neo-con, almost as good a neo-con as Bush.

He has tried to engage with Iran using diplomacy rather than bluster. (it hasn't worked yet - it may never work, but then, bluster never worked either.)

Obama did do better in trying to talk with iran, though they both support sanctions.

He has put nuclear non-proliferation back on the table and reenaged the Russians on reducing the number of nuclear weapons.

This really didnt come up much in the Bush years (if memory serves)

Guantanamo may not be closed yet, but it is closing and the prisoners are getting trials in the US.

Closing, but not closed is correct. I dont anticipate any change in secret prison policy, but maybe he'll surprise me.

Ask twa whether Obama handled the coup in Honduras differently than Bush would have.

We would never know. It didnt happen in the Bush years.

Ask yourself whether the missile defense battery would still be in Poland if Bush were still President.

Ask Benyamin Netanyahu whether there is any difference in the US/Israel relationship.

There are a ton of differences, and it only has been ten months.

I never claimed there were no differences, in fact you even responded to a post from me that mentioned there were nuances that were the same.

But when we see both Iraq and Afghanistan with troops still there, massive foreign aid, the same old patriot act spin, etc , it's silly to claim they dont hold to roughluy the same policy as a whole.

[SnyderShrugged]

And you are still acting like an ass.

As was pointed out, your first post accused Obama of "twisted logic". That's a matter of record and that is what I responded to. If you go back and read my posts, that is very clear. Instead of debating that point you have attacked me personally over several posts in an effort to minimalize my opinions without having to resort to anything resembling logic or intelligence.

Back to the point of twisted logic. Still waiting for you to tell me who made this "Bushian" statement:

"As our enemies have found we can reason like men, so now let us show them we can fight like men also."

And I would love to hear your argument as to how Bush would have put an 18 month timetable on Afghanistan since you think his foreign policy is so similar.

The bottom line is you don't want to talk about the issues at all because you know you don't have a leg to stand on. It's much easier to accuse me of having a "tantrum" instead. After all, I'm not Mr. Popular on this board and you can play that up by trying to make me look bad.

Go ahead. Play it up. I'm often rude. I don't give a crap about winning popularity contests so you wont catch me doing the glad handed, fake smile, politician's bull **** that you do with anyone who will agree with you.

So yeah, keep playing that angle. I'm sure it will work for many on the board. But it wont change the fact I'm still right.

And BTW: Since I know you won't answer my question. The above "war hawk" quote was by Thomas Jefferson.

Note to mods: I'm doing my best to keep things civil in this thread despite repeated antagonism by SS.

Note to mods: MM is being a baby

[alexey]

Of course you do, but that has much more to do with SnyderShrugged and less to do with Obama or Bush.

You see the world as Pure Ron Paul Libertatian Disengagement vs. Everything Else. Of course they look the same to you.

Looks like this is it...

[Predicto]

Awesome!

Because I find my words lame and weak all the time

Haha

Well, now we have something in common.