Obama Asks "To Seek A New Beginning" With Muslims In Cairo Speech

"The harmony in the world we are looking for can only happen when we get rid of religion everywhere"

I agree, but religion is not going anywhere, at least for a long, long time, and probably not even then, thanks to the state of human development. Maybe I'm too pessimistic. Moreover, we probably don't want to get rid of religion--even an honest atheist can acknowledge the calm and hope and purpose that religion provides to millions, if not billions, of people, the vast majority of whom don't try to kill members of other faiths. No other cultural system can yet replace that function, even if we would like it to be so.

So, we have to figure out a way to work with religion--more tolerance, less fundamentalism, etc. I see small hopeful signs in some areas--for instance, the relatively tolerant attitudes of young die-hard Christians toward gay marriage, as shown in various polls.

That was a great speech, and I think it included a decent balance of tough and tolerant. I hope Obama has the strength and smarts for some decent follow-through.

"I'd like to get rid of the religious 'nuts', but not religion."

You said it better than I did, and with much less hot air. Thanks.

I'm not religious, either. But I've known enough good and great people who are, and have benefited from the thoughts and art of many other religious people.

While I'm always willing for our country to dance with demons if it increases our power without soiling our bed too much--Nixon was brilliant in playing off Red China against the Soviets, the classic example after our dance with Stalin against the Germans and Japanese--it appears our relationship with the Egyptian dictator has caused more harm than good, hasn't it? Maybe his son or nephews will be better, though I would not count on it.

Anyway ...

While I agree with the general spineless quality of most media, I have, since I was young, learned much about the Egyptian dictator through general interest media, including but not limited to the New York Times, the Washington Post, Newsweek, Time, etc. Just saying. But your larger point is well taken.

Yeah, it's off topic, but I think you raise an important point regarding our relationship with the Middle East and Muslims in general.

Yeah, it was so brilliant that now we don't make a damn thing in this country & owe the Chines a couple of trillion dollars!

Netanyahu's bad enough--he's grown even more radical since his last term in office--but his foreign minister, I worry, is skirting the edge of insanity.

I would love for Israel to force a distancing between us and them--they need us much, much more than we need them. And I say this is a strong supporter of Israel* (obviously not as "strong" as the right-wing nuts in the USA, who basically need the Jews at their stage marks in Israel for all those rapture fantasies to come true.)

*how can I not support the most democratic and Western country in that region (including Turkey)?

Navin. I agree. I think we should take Jerusalem away from both of them and turn it into an international city with its own zip code like the Vatican

Granted, my bias is toward American political and economic supremacy wherever possible, even with all the imperfections.

Ahhhhh Matlida finally reveals her small town backwards ideals passed down from one generation to the next.

Take your supremacy and shove it up your small town mind. People like you disgust me. I need a drink.

So naive, Spook, so naive (and ironic that you think I'm backward).

Power flows to certain countries; there is rarely a vacuum when it comes to regional and global power. This is a fact of history, as old as the first kingdoms along the Tigris and Euphrates. I'd rather have more power in the hands of the USA than, say, Russia or China.

"Take your supremacy and shove it up your small town mind. "

Take your leftist naive attitudes and discard them. They aren't any good outside grad school anyway. And, seriously, study some history.

"People like you disgust me."

Then I must be doing something right. People like you are perpetually weak, like to be weak, and apparently think the world would live in perfect harmony if the US would simply remove itself from the world. There's a word for that view: Stupidity.

Small town? So, no one bred in any city has similar views? God, you are ignorant. And weak.

But, as always, thanks for playing. You make a dumb person such as me feel incredibly smart.

Indeed, there is. I want my country to remain as powerful as possible, which requires a smart use of power and acknowledging the realities of the world instead of following self-defeating ideologies. Why that is a controversial position is beyond me. Some people are just more comfortable being weak, I guess. That is why they are so easily ruled and manipulated. And while I prefer Western values--so does everyone here, I am sure, even if they don't like to admit it because it's not cool or hip--I don't subscribe to the usually right-wing notion of American exceptionalism, which is as about as factually solid and useful as left-wing ideas of peaceful utopia. Like it or not, our world remains one of nation-states and geopolitics, and that is unlikely to change anytime soon. And, like it or not, if not us holding power, then China or some other countries will inherit significant chunks of what is more or less an American Empire. The Brits know how this process works. So did the ancient Greeks, the Persians, etc. Right now, for all our many faults, I think we are doing better than the Chinese and most other great or nearly great powers in terms of freedom, etc.

I think you'll increasingly find that a lot of our power and success is based on easy global credit and a false individual sense of wealth based on actual debt. It's all coming to roost now. Luckily for us China is just as afraid as we are of seeing our economy collapse. Our real power and wealth has been sapped by imperialist adventures meant to enrich a small elite who'll probably take their money and retire in Dubai or someplace. Personally I look forward to a future when India or someone else is The World's Great Satan, former (modern) empires tend to start taking care of their own backyard once the sun sets on them and the people are much better for it.

"You make a good point on people choosing dicatatorships. Though extremely mild by comparison, the people of Chicago have chosen what amounts to dictatorship for generations at this point."

Exactly. All people choose their governments, even us.

And I agree, we need to involve ourselves in certain conflicts that do affect our security and economic interests. I think the First Persion Gulf War is an example of that, and we handled it as well as we could (Get in, get out). I think in a sense, our recent foray into Afghanistan involved a true threat to national security, though we blew that completely. And the situation brewing in Pakistan is one we should be paying very close attention to.

Israel/Palestine, though, we should have left alone long ago, because aside from the nuclear element, we have no dog in that fight. Our only interest comes from those with too literal a reading of the book of Revelations.

"I think in a sense, our recent foray into Afghanistan involved a true threat to national security, though we blew that completely. And the situation brewing in Pakistan is one we should be paying very close attention to."

Agree 100%.

"Israel/Palestine, though, we should have left alone long ago, because aside from the nuclear element, we have no dog in that fight. Our only interest comes from those with too literal a reading of the book of Revelations."

Agree for the most part--nice line about Revelations, by the way--but unfortunately, our need for oil, our need to combat radical Islam and several other factors beyond the nutty Christian right have become wrapped up in this situation. I wish we could distance ourselves from the Israeli/Palestinian struggle, but I think more of our involvement will be needed to push the parties toward some sort of peace. I guess we will see. Bush was more or less hands off, and Obama signals he will get more involved.

Glad you broke your rule, by the way ;)

Any U.S. politician who dares challenge the status quo regarding Israel and Palestine can consider themselves ruined: http://www.aipac.org/

More great points, especially about Tiananmen. The more I study that uprising, the more I tilt toward that conclusion. One must never forget that a certain Chinese official's death sparked the protests (sorry, I have forgotten his name). One could argue that for many who protested at the time, their needs have been meant in the past 20 years of Chinese prosperity. Still, tank man can still make me emotional.

As for AIPAC, perhaps the power of that lobby is weakening now that Bush and his supporters have left the scene. At least I hope so. And Obama is taking a relatively tough stand toward the Israeli settlements, which I think is a good move (as does a significant portion of the Israeli population, at least according to what I've read). Let's see where that goes.

I'm not sure how much Israel itself affects our oil interests, as Israel isn't a big oil producer. They import far more than they produce. The problem we have is that Israel's enemies tend to be the big producers, and our obcessive stand with Israel only makes it harder for us to deal with the producers. In this respect, we actually are acting against our interests. But Navin is unfortunately correct in that any politician who tries to sever that tie is sure to find himself unemployed.

Nevertheless, I'm hoping Obama's stand against the Israeli settlments strengthens over time, though he'll have a rough go of it with Netanyahu in charge.

As for China, I read a good book recently that detailed the situation with the Chinese people. "China Road," by long-time NPR correspondent Rob Gifford. He spent five weeks traveling the width of the country on Route 312, talking to both rural Chinese and city dwellers about where they think China's future lies, all while giving a firm background of Chinese history and culture to explain possible reasons the Chinese people are the way they are. Very informative.

"The problem we have is that Israel's enemies tend to be the big producers, and our obcessive stand with Israel only makes it harder for us to deal with the producers. In this respect, we actually are acting against our interests."

That's my point. But our interests presumably go beyond oil: We also have a security interest in promoting Western-style democracy around the world, even if we usually do it in a very dumb and clumsy manner.

Thanks for the book recommendation.

I think we tread on dangerous territory when we start talking about promoting Western-style democracy, as I'm not sure how much such a thing can really be promoted. In many ways, I think it needs to come from within a culture, and that it needs to take a form that fits that culture rather than something that fit a culture in which men wore wigs 200 years ago. I see value in supporting movements that develop independently, such as what you saw rising in Iran until Bush got everybody riled up by invading the country next door. Beyond that, I think we risk a lot by involving ourselves, even if an increase of democracy in the Middle East would benefit us. You are right, in that we've mostly been clumsy in this.

"China's a good example of what can occur if a country can be left to its own devices, their extreme changes were needed (for them) to shake off a long history of colonial exploitation. We've generally left them alone and because of it they've slowly morphed at their own pace into a system that while flawed seems to suit them."

Since we are acting as though we are Secretary of State, I am curious about how you think China will develop politically over the next 20 years. I think you have a bit of a rosy view of China--I would place more emphasis on the country's totalitarian leaders since the late 1940s, in tandem with the legacy of colonial exploitation---but I see your point.

I'm not really sure what you mean, my larger point is that we didn't really force anything on them and they've been largely successful unlike other countries who we (and others) have tried to extend our hegemony over. That's kind of undeniable. Also undeniable that China (for all its bad policies) hasn't really been going around the world raining bombs on other countries either. Unlike us.

I can't tell you what the next 20 years holds for any country let alone China. My guess is that their biggest problems could come from massive unrest of their huge rural populations if they can't take care of them.

I also think the fall of the iron curtain has less to do with cold war bravado than economic collapse. After dealing with the shock of pure capitalism a lot of those people are pining for good old authoritarianism, that's why Putin is hugely popular. It's been very good for the porn and human trafficking industries though.

"That's a pipe dream though, those things benefit a tiny elite at the expense of the masses and always have."

Unfortunately, I agree. It is the way of the world.

You can perhaps imagine how frustrating the last 10 years or so have been for me, a person who wants more American power in the world, so see idiots make us less powerful. Diplomacy is strength, too--Bismark proved that.

Anyway ...

Oh yeah, that's partly what I was saying. There were also other issues. Changes in energy prices/demand were a HUGE factor.

"tupid Tidla YOU are a pompous supercilious idiot, the worst kind of person. And for me to debate you would be an insult to my person"

Spoken like a true coward who can't stand real debate, and who regularly demonstrates ignorance of basic facts. I remember you a while ago trying to peddle the bullshit that the US defense budget consumers some 70% of GDP. Fucking fool.

By the way, you insult yourself with your logic-challenged ranting.

"And Blueline, I will leave you with a quote that I think you will find amusing by my older white woman crush Joyce Carol Oates"

You always define people on race, it seems. How fucking superficial. What, special-ed people are boring you today?

"Any way besides for slavery, Jim crow, Vietnam, covert operations in the Congo, Iraq, etc, etc, I wonder how much American exceptionalism has cost us?"

No one claims--certainly not me--that America is perfect. Apparently, the presence of grave mistakes means we should just be weak. More fucking foolishness.

And I love, love, love how you apparently think I am some small-town hick with neo-con ideals. You traffic in assumptions and stereotypes, despite your play at championing diversity and progressive thought, and you have little grasp of the facts despite your bullshit claims that you often read important books. You are the worst kind of useless fool, and tilt much more toward the totalitarian than your fucking puny mind can ever grasp.

Then again, I am pleased at the fact that your kind--so-called progressives who have nothing but stereotypes and pseudo-revolutionary rhetoric--have absolutely no fucking power in this country. Great job, sparky. Now go back and bitch about evil white people or Midwesterners or whatever--that seems to be your main talent, stereotypes.

Come on, spew more insults my way, sparky. It's the only thing you have, and it's about as effective as a dog pissing on the grass. Besides, we both know you are a shriveled flower, cowardly and shy, when it comes to face-to-face encounters. Don't pretend you don't know what I'm talking about, either: That one time in Logan Square, at some dive bar you pretend is some Parisian salon.

That one time in Logan Square, at some dive bar you pretend is some Parisian salon

Ooh what bar?

To be honest, I have forgotten. Sorry. My Logan Square geography is pretty rusty these days. I think it was somewhere not too far from Kimball, but I'm not sure. It really wasn't a big deal, but it sure signaled the distance between Spook's internet toughness and his real personality.

I'd love to hear that story.