Obama? Interview? Not with U.S. news

What part are you talking about?
Huh? He hasnt spoken to another country publicly yet? He was talking to a media outlet, that is broadcast throughout the muslim world.
As for the rest of your post, I am not even sure what you mean.




You don’t have to go to far in the interview... the first reply is the one that disgusted me the most.


First question by the reporter

Q: Sir, you just met with your personal envoy to the Middle East, Sen. Mitchell. Obviously, his first task is to consolidate the cease-fire. But beyond that you've been saying that you want to pursue actively and aggressively peacemaking between the Palestinians and the Israelis. Tell us a little bit about how do you see your personal role, because, you know, if the president of the United States is not involved, nothing happens -- as the history of peacemaking shows.


first answer by obama

THE PRESIDENT: Well, I think the most important thing is for the United States to get engaged right away. And George Mitchell is somebody of enormous stature. He is one of the few people who have international experience brokering peace deals.
And so what I told him is start by listening, because all too often the United States starts by dictating -- in the past on some of these issues -- and we don't always know all the factors that are involved. So let's listen. .


You can go further down in the interview and find one or two more, but in fairness he actually said America was great toward the end of the interview too! :eek:

and as for the second part of your post

"Huh? He hasnt spoken to another country publicly yet".

Don’t you remember Berlin when he was a citizen of the world? He socked us a few good ones there too!

and in a number of his speeches on US soil he would say something to the effect of......I direct this to other nations listening also, then give some comment similar to the above.

but again, I have no problem with admitting our failures or mistakes, just it would be nice for him to get through even one interview or speech about our Country when he didn't sock us in the eye.
 
Werbung:
And so what I told him is start by listening, because all too often the United States starts by dictating -- in the past on some of these issues -- and we don't always know all the factors that are involved. So let's listen. .

Wait... Didn't Rev. Wright say something like this, but ended it with god damn America?
 
And so what I told him is start by listening, because all too often the United States starts by dictating -- in the past on some of these issues -- and we don't always know all the factors that are involved. So let's listen. .


You can go further down in the interview and find one or two more, but in fairness he actually said America was great toward the end of the interview too! :eek:

O my god, that's horrible, I cant believe how anti American he is, asking him to listen to what they want more , and tell them what they need to do less....that's so anti American. The True American way and value is to tell people what to do, and not listen to what they actuly need or want...Right?

Whats sad is your attacking Obama, for basically doing what anyone who was ever good at sales knows is the best way to work with someone.

realy sad, and pathetic try there NoObama.
 

I almost never click links and I would not have clicked this one except I was curious to who your master was. I never found that out but the link was well worth reading. I am going to copy and paste it for those like me who dont normally click links but might be glad they read it.

I agree with this guy 100 % its very well said! Thank you for posting it

January 30, 2009
Obama's Unnecessary Apology
By Charles Krauthammer

WASHINGTON -- Every new president flatters himself that he, kinder and gentler, is beginning the world anew. Yet, when Barack Obama in his inaugural address reached out to Muslims with "to the Muslim world, we seek a new way forward, based on mutual interest and mutual respect," his formulation was needlessly defensive and apologetic.

Is it "new" to acknowledge Muslim interests and show respect to the Muslim world? Obama doesn't just think so, he said so again to millions in his al-Arabiya interview, insisting on the need to "restore" the "same respect and partnership that America had with the Muslim world as recently as 20 or 30 years ago."

Astonishing. In these most recent 20 years -- the alleged winter of our disrespect of the Islamic world -- America did not just respect Muslims, it bled for them. It engaged in five military campaigns, every one of which involved -- and resulted in -- the liberation of a Muslim people: Bosnia, Kosovo, Kuwait, Afghanistan and Iraq.

The two Balkan interventions -- as well as the failed 1992-93 Somali intervention to feed starving African Muslims (43 Americans were killed) -- were humanitarian exercises of the highest order, there being no significant U.S. strategic interest at stake. In these 20 years, this nation has done more for suffering and oppressed Muslims than any nation, Muslim or non-Muslim, anywhere on earth. Why are we apologizing?

And what of that happy U.S.-Muslim relationship that Obama imagines existed "as recently as 20 or 30 years ago" that he has now come to restore? Thirty years ago, 1979, saw the greatest U.S.-Muslim rupture in our 233-year history: Iran's radical Islamic revolution, the seizure of the U.S. embassy, the 14 months of America held hostage.

Which came just a few years after the Arab oil embargo that sent the United States into a long and punishing recession. Which, in turn, was preceded by the kidnapping and cold-blooded execution by Arab terrorists of the U.S. ambassador in Sudan and his charge d'affaires.

This is to say nothing of the Marine barracks massacre of 1983, and the innumerable attacks on U.S. embassies and installations around the world during what Obama now characterizes as the halcyon days of U.S.-Islamic relations.

Look. If Barack Obama wants to say, as he said to al-Arabiya, I have Muslim roots, Muslim family members, have lived in a Muslim country -- implying a special affinity that uniquely positions him to establish good relations -- that's fine. But it is both false and deeply injurious to this country to draw a historical line dividing America under Obama from a benighted past when Islam was supposedly disrespected and demonized.

As in Obama's grand admonition: "We cannot paint with a broad brush a faith as a consequence of the violence that is done in that faith's name." Have "we" been doing that, smearing Islam because of a small minority? George Bush went to the Islamic Center in Washington six days after 9/11, when the fires of Ground Zero were still smoldering, to declare "Islam is peace," to extend fellowship and friendship to Muslims, to insist that Americans treat them with respect and generosity of spirit.

And America listened. In these seven years since 9/11 -- seven years during which thousands of Muslims rioted all over the world (resulting in the death of more than 100) to avenge a bunch of cartoons -- there's not been a single anti-Muslim riot in the United States to avenge the greatest massacre in U.S. history. On the contrary. In its aftermath, we elected our first Muslim member of Congress and our first president of Muslim parentage.

"My job," says Obama, "is to communicate to the American people that the Muslim world is filled with extraordinary people who simply want to live their lives and see their children live better lives." That's his job? Do the American people think otherwise? Does he think he is bravely breaking new ground? George Bush, Condoleezza Rice and countless other leaders offered myriad expressions of that same universalist sentiment.

Every president has the right to portray himself as ushering in a new era of this or that. Obama wants to pursue new ties with Muslim nations, drawing on his own identity and associations. Good. But when his self-inflation as redeemer of U.S.-Muslim relations leads him to suggest that pre-Obama America was disrespectful or insensitive or uncaring of Muslims, he is engaging not just in fiction but in gratuitous disparagement of the country he is now privileged to lead.
 
sorry to say but it was. thats what happens when you screw around to much with other nations...hence why it use to be a Republican and US view to stay out of other nations business.

I don't buy it. The United States has acted abroad since gaining independence. The United States has maintained a presence in the Middle East for over 60 years at this point. (Might call that "screwing around with other nations") Interestingly enough, Bin Laden and his followers did not hate the United States until the 1990's when they were slighted by Saudi Arabia and then US troops were stationed in the holy land.

It is not "screwing around with other nations" that is the problem. In fact I would hardly call the groups that we are fighting loyal to any nation in particular.
 
I don't buy it. The United States has acted abroad since gaining independence. The United States has maintained a presence in the Middle East for over 60 years at this point. (Might call that "screwing around with other nations") Interestingly enough, Bin Laden and his followers did not hate the United States until the 1990's when they were slighted by Saudi Arabia and then US troops were stationed in the holy land.

It is not "screwing around with other nations" that is the problem. In fact I would hardly call the groups that we are fighting loyal to any nation in particular.

you realy think this only goes back to the 90's ? that is only when Al Quida decided to take Jihad global and to the West...but it goes back to before the 70's even in its roots. And its roots are in fact in our policy with Isreal, our policies with Arab leaders, and aslo as our shown lack of resolve to do much when hit ( Carter, one mission went bad, we cried and put tail between legs, Reagan they hit our Marines in Lebanon and we ran away, Somalia they hit us, we ran again....) And as for there loyalty, they are loyal, but not to there leaders, but to Islam, and a Islamic state ( insert name of nation here) but still they are loyal to there nations. They hate what there nations have become, they hate there leaders...and they want to build the nation to what they invision..not what the west wants and can deal with. They see the problems, they see the poor leaders, and they see that reason they still hold power as us, the US. And at least in part, that is true. One need only look at Iran to see the contrast when we don't support there leaders and actually support Democracy over tyranny..they have the most Pro west/US population in the middle east. Why? because we actually stand up to there leaders who they want out...while the rest we support economically and with Military as well.

The attacks on the US on Sept 11, had a clear target...but the goal was not just kill Americans...it was to drive a wedge with the US/ SA relations , to cut our support for them, so that they could better wage the Jihad against there own politicians and leaders....the US is to arrogant to see, that this Jihad...we are not the target...we are just something that needs to be removed in order to wage war on there real targets ..
 
Werbung:
you realy think this only goes back to the 90's ? that is only when Al Quida decided to take Jihad global and to the West...but it goes back to before the 70's even in its roots. And its roots are in fact in our policy with Isreal, our policies with Arab leaders, and aslo as our shown lack of resolve to do much when hit ( Carter, one mission went bad, we cried and put tail between legs, Reagan they hit our Marines in Lebanon and we ran away, Somalia they hit us, we ran again....)

Sure it can be traced back before the 90's. However it was the 90's that made it a clear threat domestically for the United States. Also, many of the examples you cite were not carried out by the same groups...

So yes, it can be traced back to earlier, however, it was not until the 1990's that the movement got organized and put together plans of attack domestically.

But I agree, they have learned many lessons from watching us have no resolve. That was a clear strategy in Iraq.

And as for there loyalty, they are loyal, but not to there leaders, but to Islam, and a Islamic state ( insert name of nation here) but still they are loyal to there nations. They hate what there nations have become, they hate there leaders...and they want to build the nation to what they invision..not what the west wants and can deal with. They see the problems, they see the poor leaders, and they see that reason they still hold power as us, the US.

I can see this argument, but it does not seem to mesh with the notion that the US "screwing around" with other states is the cause.


And at least in part, that is true. One need only look at Iran to see the contrast when we don't support there leaders and actually support Democracy over tyranny..they have the most Pro west/US population in the middle east. Why? because we actually stand up to there leaders who they want out...while the rest we support economically and with Military as well.

Iran does not actually have the most pro-West population in the Middle East, but there are segments in Iran that are pro-Western.

However, given your comments, are you in favor or military action in Iran?

The attacks on the US on Sept 11, had a clear target...but the goal was not just kill Americans...it was to drive a wedge with the US/ SA relations , to cut our support for them, so that they could better wage the Jihad against there own politicians and leaders....the US is to arrogant to see, that this Jihad...we are not the target...we are just something that needs to be removed in order to wage war on there real targets ..

It is no secret that the Saudi monarchy is a target of extremism, many current regimes over there are, I agree with you there.
 
Back
Top