Obama's Nobel Peace Prize acceptance speech

[Smoot Point Really]

And it was a dumb thing to do. All it did was inflame the rhetoric and make diplomacy more difficult. Not that he was willing to talk with anyone anyway. The Axis of Evil stuff was just bad statesmanship, esp. since they refused to follow up against 2/3's of it.

You and I will have to disagree on this point... Just because they didn't "follow up on it" doesn't mean it wasn't a bad move. Look what is happening over there now. It turned out to be fairly "prophetic".

[Burgold]

You might find time and history prove you wrong as classified info is revealed.

You might not even have long to wait to get a peek.

What follow up would you have supported?(just for my curiosity,promise I won't attack)

Twa, that's a fairly complex question. It would involve re-writing a lot of time of time lines. Of all the nations we chose to attack on the war in terror it is probable that we attacked the one that was the least dangerous to us and the world. Syria, Iran, Saudi Arabia all have been profoundly more involved in supplying, funding, and giving sanctuary to terrorists.

As it turned out, attacking and staying in Iraq diminished our ability to deal with Iran and North Korea. It showed our hand and it stretched us too thin. This gave the Iranians free reign to do what they want because they knew that we weren't going to do anything but bluster and the Axis of evil talk turns out to be all bluster which makes it more than useless. It actually encourages our enemies to be more evil.

You and I will have to disagree on this point... Just because they didn't "follow up on it" doesn't mean it wasn't a bad move. Look what is happening over there now. It turned out to be fairly "prophetic".

To both, who didn't know that Iran was "evil?" How does the rhetoric help? How is it constructive? How does it move forward our plans and desires?

It doesn't. It just sets us up as adverseries or increases the degree of the adverserial role. It's like that crap that Amindenejad (can never spell his name) spews. It's infamatory rhetoric that gets his own people riled off and pisses off everyone else or in the best case scenario makes you that bombastic jerk that everyone tunes out.

Calling Iran evil was stupid, esp. if you don't follow it up with any actions.

[twa]

:hysterical:

http://iowntheworld.com/blog/?p=12625

[alexey]

:hysterical:

http://iowntheworld.com/blog/?p=12625

That's a very good photo shop job!

I cannot describe the truly unique mix of feelings that I get when I see people claiming that Obama is just like Bush, and making fun of liberals for not seeing that. That's really something. A blind squirrel is supposed to find a nut once in a while, but here we have one that got all tangled up in an electrified barbed wire. It's very sad and little funny at the same time, but you feel bad for finding it humorous.

[Mad Mike]

Twa, that's a fairly complex question. It would involve re-writing a lot of time of time lines. Of all the nations we chose to attack on the war in terror it is probable that we attacked the one that was the least dangerous to us and the world. Syria, Iran, Saudi Arabia all have been profoundly more involved in supplying, funding, and giving sanctuary to terrorists.

You are welcome to your opinion that there were more dangerous threats. But the above section in green is absolutely false.

I've posted the Iraqi Perspectives Project text again and again. It clearly proves that not only was Saddam MASSIVELY involved in supporting international terrorism, he was actively recruiting terrorist organizations (including offshoots of al Qaeda) and targeting American interests. THESE ARE DOCUMENTED FACTS. Not only that. He was Harboring ALL of the most wanted terrorist leaders before bin Laden and using them as advisors and contacts to other terrorists. ALL OF THEM. Iraq was THE safe haven for the most wanted terrorists in the world. :doh:

And while there may be people in Saudi Arabia who support terrorism, the nation itself is fighting al Qaeda. In fact, it is al Qaeda's #1 goal to overthrow SA.

As it turned out, attacking and staying in Iraq diminished our ability to deal with Iran and North Korea. It showed our hand and it stretched us too thin. This gave the Iranians free reign to do what they want because they knew that we weren't going to do anything but bluster and the Axis of evil talk turns out to be all bluster which makes it more than useless. It actually encourages our enemies to be more evil.

I'll simply disagree here and say that it is my opinion that attacking Iraq showed the world, including Iran, Siria and North Korea just how serious we can be. In fact it was the day after Saddam was pulled from his hole that Libia decided it would be best to give up their WMD programs after years of negotiations had gone nowhere.

To both, who didn't know that Iran was "evil?" How does the rhetoric help? How is it constructive? How does it move forward our plans and desires?

It doesn't. It just sets us up as adverseries or increases the degree of the adverserial role. It's like that crap that Amindenejad (can never spell his name) spews. It's infamatory rhetoric that gets his own people riled off and pisses off everyone else or in the best case scenario makes you that bombastic jerk that everyone tunes out.

Bush: "Iraq, Iran, and North Korea are part of an axis of evil"

Ahmadinejad: "anybody who recognizes Israel will burn in the fire of the Islamic nation's fury," - "There is no doubt that the new wave (of attacks) in Palestine will wipe off this stigma (Israel) from the face of the Islamic world, ... The World without Zionism." - "As the Imam said, Israel must be wiped off the map"

Yeah, they sound exactly the same. /sarc

Calling Iran evil was stupid, esp. if you don't follow it up with any actions.

It may be your opinion that it was stupid to call evil regimes evil, but they were already adversaries and trying to make nice has not gotten us anywhere before or since. IMO, calling them what they are hasn't changed a damned thing one way or another.

But hey, that's just *my* opinion.

[Teller]

The erosion of the prestige of the Nobel Peace Prize continues.

At least he didn't get it for economics, nor Gore for science. :hysterical:

[Seabee1973]

Glad you like some of my posts, sorry you cant see reality regarding this one.

Please delineate between this speach (the entire one) and most of Bush's regarding the wars in the middle east.

How come Obama gets a Nobel for doing the same things Bush did?

Obama gets a peace prize for Bush

[Burgold]

It may be your opinion that it was stupid to call evil regimes evil, but they were already adversaries and trying to make nice has not gotten us anywhere before or since. IMO, calling them what they are hasn't changed a damned thing one way or another.

But hey, that's just *my* opinion.

Good rebuttal. I wonder if it is possible we are both correct depending on the perspective we take. I would argue that yesterday and today that Iran, Syria, and even Saudi Arabia were much more serious allies to the terrorists as well being engaged in terrorism itself.

[alexey]

It may be your opinion that it was stupid to call evil regimes evil, but they were already adversaries and trying to make nice has not gotten us anywhere before or since. IMO, calling them what they are hasn't changed a damned thing one way or another.

But hey, that's just *my* opinion.

You generally want to marginalize extremists and drive a wedge between extremists and moderates. Calling a whole country evil invokes nationalistic tendencies and does the opposite.

[twa]

You generally want to marginalize extremists and drive a wedge between extremists and moderates. Calling a whole country evil invokes nationalistic tendencies and does the opposite.

Aren't you confusing condemning a countries actions/policies with the people themselves?

Burgold you confront different nations in different manners as W did.

Our actions in Iraq had direct influence on Iran,Syria and SA...and will continue to....Democracy in a area led by despots creates waves and exposes injustices.

[Prosperity]

ehhh I thought the speech was probably as good as it could have been given the situation. Foreign policy wise Obama has still been an improvement over Bush.

Our actions in Iraq had direct influence on Iran,Syria and SA...and will continue to....Democracy in a area led by despots creates waves and exposes injustices.

that sounds naive

[alexey]

Aren't you confusing condemning a countries actions/policies with the people themselves?

Burgold you confront different nations in different manners as W did.

Our actions in Iraq had direct influence on Iran,Syria and SA...and will continue to....Democracy in a area led by despots creates waves and exposes injustices.

I too think that long-term effect of our actions in Iraq will be positive.

[Burgold]

Aren't you confusing condemning a countries actions/policies with the people themselves?

Burgold you confront different nations in different manners as W did.

Our actions in Iraq had direct influence on Iran,Syria and SA...and will continue to....Democracy in a area led by despots creates waves and exposes injustices.

Nah, I don't think you can really associate Bush with Nuance. Plus, is giving a country (or countries) the silent treatment really a different diplomatic approach?

I hope that there will be a regional dominno effect. I was just saying that Bush's rhetoric was counterproductive.

[twa]

that sounds naive

Could be... appealing to the higher concepts of mankind can certainly be inefficient.

a bullet to the head is quicker and more effective...if a bit messier

[Prosperity]

Could be... appealing to the higher concepts of mankind can certainly be inefficient.

a bullet to the head is quicker and more effective...if a bit messier

neither of those two thoughts apply to my comment... I could give some complicated 'highfalutin" explanation but I'd rather you just take my word for it

[twa]

neither of those two thoughts apply to my comment... I could give some complicated 'high fallootin" explanation but i'd rather you just take my word for it

ok.............

[Prosperity]

I guess my last post probably sounded dumb, basically, I didn't say democracy itself was naive... I'm guessing that's the higher concept you were talking about.

I was talking about the idea that invading country and propping up a democracy is somehow supposed to spread democracy to other countries. For one, if Iran gets democracy it sure as **** isn't going to be because Saddam got overthrown, and I don't want this little talking point to be used to give Bush credit for something the Iranian people earn (if they do) because well... Iran has had a democratic movement since 1905 and the invasion of Iraq did nothing to further the movement.

Your idea is naive because it's basically a rehashed domino theory, except with democracy instead of communism... both were just ideas that sounded plausible, but had no basis in reality... except the former was a doomsday scenario and the latter is some neo-con-hippy- utopian ideal.

[twa]

Wilson thought it had merit...as well as many others throughout history.

Freedom and self determination are contagious if permitted to.

I do think a Iranian change will be helped by the Shia influences in Iraq being freed from oppression...whether W gets credit or not.

[skinfan133]

We have been studying Obama's foreign policy in one of my international politics courses. This speech could be the outlying of a whole new American outlook on foreign diplomacy. It's actually fascinating to see which paradigms Obama is embracing and which one's he is shifting.

between this speech and his West Point speech, Obama seems to be laying the groundwork for a whole new doctrine, an Obama Doctrine, if you will, that combines the disciplines of international liberalism and realism.

As a libertarian, I have to say that I do not support most of what Obama says should happen on the world stage, but it will be interesting to see if this venture will succeed.

and for those comparing this outlining of foreign relations to Bush's; you couldn't be further from the truth. Obama has departed from Bush in some very key areas and embraced many more tenets of International Liberalism.

[skinfan133]

I would also like to add that its very interesting that Obama's speech wasn't cut off by applause until about the 20 minute mark, and only twice more after that. 4 applause's in total if you count the final one at the end. I think his speech was not popular

[Mad Mike]

You generally want to marginalize extremists and drive a wedge between extremists and moderates. Calling a whole country evil invokes nationalistic tendencies and does the opposite.

Sure. If you assume Bush was speaking of the Iranian people. He was not. In fact he said exactly the opposite.

Bush State of the Union address - January 29, 2002

http://transcripts.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/01/29/bush.speech.txt/

Our second goal is to prevent regimes that sponsor terror from threatening America or our friends and allies with weapons of mass destruction.

Some of these regimes have been pretty quiet since September 11, but we know their true nature. North Korea is a regime arming with missiles and weapons of mass destruction, while starving its citizens.

Iran aggressively pursues these weapons and exports terror, while an unelected few repress the Iranian people's hope for freedom.

Iraq continues to flaunt its hostility toward America and to support terror. The Iraqi regime has plotted to develop anthrax and nerve gas and nuclear weapons for over a decade. This is a regime that has already used poison gas to murder thousands of its own citizens, leaving the bodies of mothers huddled over their dead children. This is a regime that agreed to international inspections then kicked out the inspectors. This is a regime that has something to hide from the civilized world.

States like these, and their terrorist allies, constitute an axis of evil, arming to threaten the peace of the world. By seeking weapons of mass destruction, these regimes pose a grave and growing danger. They could provide these arms to terrorists, giving them the means to match their hatred. They could attack our allies or attempt to blackmail the United States. In any of these cases, the price of indifference would be catastrophic.