Posted on 12/10/2009 8:49:30 AM PST by OneVike
I have to admit, it was one of the strangest speeches Obama has ever given. In Obama usual grand way, his rhetoric was high flying, and a mixture of pragmatism and nonsense. But it does provide a window into his mind, and it is a shocking view.
Obama provided an empassioned defense of America’s wars as ‘just’ wars for humanitarian reasons…something George W. Bush campaigned on worldwide during his presidency.
We must begin by acknowledging the hard truth that we will not eradicate violent conflict in our lifetimes. There will be times when nations – acting individually or in concert – will find the use of force not only necessary but morally justified…
But as a head of state sworn to protect and defend my nation, I cannot be guided by their examples alone. I face the world as it is, and cannot stand idle in the face of threats to the American people. For make no mistake: evil does exist in the world. A non-violent movement could not have halted Hitler’s armies. Negotiations cannot convince al Qaeda’s leaders to lay down their arms. To say that force is sometimes necessary is not a call to cynicism – it is a recognition of history; the imperfections of man and the limits of reason.
I raise this point because in many countries there is a deep ambivalence about military action today, no matter the cause. At times, this is joined by a reflexive suspicion of America, the world’s sole military superpower.
Interesting passages. If you go back and read George W. Bush’s comments to the United Nations prior to the Iraq War, it echoes the exact same sentiment. And the concept of ‘evil’ is intriguing…an evil enemy is one that we judge as
(Excerpt) Read more at neoavatara.com ...
Its amazing when one gets all the intel and finally concedes that Bush was right....Obama simply can’t vote present. His base must be ripping..
The Norwegian idiots who have gravitated and assembled themselves in the name of Obama are nothing more than deranged mental patients of the same caliber as the idiots who followed Jim Jones down to their deaths in Guyana back in '78.
Define “the Bush Doctrine.”
Obama sometimes talks a good talk. But his actions reveal him to be thoroughly Marxist.
I am glad someone here noticed this and pointed it out.
He is definitely endorsing the Bush doctrine here.
I have a rather bipartisan foreign policy theory about presidents. They will always do exactly the opposite of what they promise to do on foreign policy.
Clinton promised to get tough with China. He sold us out to them.
Bush promised not to do nation building. He was a huge nation builder.
Obama promised to get us out of wars. He will continue and increase wars.
There is a practical necessary logic to all of these developments. I think it is becoming true with Obama.
Yes, it does, you closet tyrant.
As Raila Odinga's favorite cousin, he fails to acknowledge that he has spent an entire lifetime formulating friendships with extremely evil and dangerous individuals who threaten free people everywhere.
Will pigs fly?
Must've been an inside job that switched the teleprompter speech.
‘I’ times 30
Is that ‘I’ to the 30th power or simple multiplication/addition?
Is there a square root of ‘I’?
Bush, the author of the worsening Afghan quagmire, was right? A better answer is that BOTH Bush and Obama are wrong.
So basically....we are saying that the Bush Doctrine got the Nobel Peace Prize? Is that what we are really saying here?
Perhaps President Obama’s speech will get some of his leftist friends off America’s case when it comes to military action.
Nah, who am I kidding?
I really don’t think there is an Afghan “quagmire”
All the Vietnam metaphors are part of a discursive community that taught and raised Obama to believe that America is always wrong.
As in Vietnam, we have not lost any military engagements with the Taliban or Al Qaeda sympathizers. Anti War zealots of all stripes simply define the pragmatics of Afghan politics as failure because we don’t see disneyland in Kabul.
Every year, we are treated to the ‘in the spring, the Taliban will rise up . . .”
If we want to crush them, we will. It is purely an internal conversation with our own public sphere. If we choose to leave, then the Taliban can return to power. Its pretty simple.
The Anti War lefties now have larger megaphones in that conversation within the administration. They never want America to win in an international setting.
I really don’t think there is an Afghan “quagmire”
All the Vietnam metaphors are part of a discursive community that taught and raised Obama to believe that America is always wrong.
As in Vietnam, we have not lost any military engagements with the Taliban or Al Qaeda sympathizers. Anti War zealots of all stripes simply define the pragmatics of Afghan politics as failure because we don’t see disneyland in Kabul.
Every year, we are treated to the ‘in the spring, the Taliban will rise up . . .”
If we want to crush them, we will. It is purely an internal conversation with our own public sphere. If we choose to leave, then the Taliban can return to power. Its pretty simple.
The Anti War lefties now have larger megaphones in that conversation within the administration. They never want America to win in an international setting.
Let me remind you of the Meriam Webster dictionary defination of quagmire (a word which dates from sixteenth century NOT Vietnam)
2 : a difficult, precarious, or entrapping position : predicament
Please tell me specifically which one of these words does NOT apply to the Afghan War. This war has been going on for eight years (far longer than anyone anticipated) and everyone concedes that the Taliban is getting stronger. Finally, the point about winning or losing conventional military "engagements" in a protracted guerilla war is largely meaningless. Washington lost nearly of all of his "engagements" too but he kept his troops in the field, continued to nibble at the enemy until they finally decided it wasn't worth any more blood and treasure and withdrew. The British were better for it too.
I really cannot see where any of the words is descriptive.
Words like quagmire are used to convince the superior American power to withdraw. There is a set of Anti Americans who use our word systems against us. The Taliban and the Anti American warriors are the same rhetorical camp.
The “trick” is always to convince us internally that we have lost and to leave. That is what happened in Vietnam.
I frankly do not think it would be horrible if we left but I would never think we lost. The Taliban are weak ignorant bigoted communities. They don’t deserve sovereignty over other human beings.
I also know that across the world, we will inevitably be back. These thugs cannot content themselves with the small fiefdoms being continually raided by the obscenity of cell phones, TV, and the internet. They have to strike back against the Great Satans. When they do, we will muster the will to crush them again.
They are losing. I don’t care how much the anti warriors romanticize them. They are losing and deserve to lose.
I don’t think of the Taliban as being like George Washington.
Any way forward is fine with me but I will never pretend that either Bush or even Obama “lost” Afghanistan or lead us into a quagmire. Even we sit back and just lob in cruise missiles, that might be fine.
The Taliban’s ideas of human culture are despicable and shameful that is the real point. To the extent that we stay and fight we provide a human vacation— particularly for women— from revolting sovereigns.
If that is your foreign policy goal why stop with the Taliban (who never attacked us)? Why not launch wars of liberation throughout Africa or, for that matter, against U.S. allied Islamo-fascist dictatorships such as Egypt and Uzbeckistan?
People think it ridiculous but I don’t flinch at this at all.
I really think we ought to come up with something like these popular gifting catalogues for helping others.
Lets list out all the horrible locales of the world and ask the sovereigns of the world if they are willing to take out the bad guys.
We did liberate Liberia under that premise. The US with about a dozen African nations got it done.
All of these rendezvous are inevitable by the end of the century and they are all easier to knock off than the Soviet Union was. The terrorist will gather there if we don’t so waiting them out does little good.
Let’s put Burma up on a ‘Coalition of the Willing’ chopping block. how many nations are willing to liberate and end their role?
—same thing with North Korea. We could even have covert conversations.
There are roughly 60 democracies including Poland, Australia, India and South korea that might opt in to various overthrows. Obama wants to pretend that Afghanistan is unique in this respect. He is just wrong. The US has never gone it alone though it almost always provides the majority of troops [not in Darfur or liberia].
Let’s start having open conversations among democratic sovereigns about carving up the non-democratic sovereigns. The mere conversations would bring about more reform than the UN centric corruption that essentially guarantees protections for the worst offenders of politics.
You make Woodrow Wilson look like a moderate in your vision of world policing. Where do you intend to get the money and blood to pay for this world social engineering? Please note that you will be depending on the scum of American society to carry out your plan: Demopublican politicans. I have a counterproposal. If you and people who agree with you want to undertake this crusade, you should be free to do so with your own money. On the other hand, if any other taxpayers don’t want to pay for it, we should be free to keep our own money and spend it as we see fit. Deal?
This is excellent. We need to keep pounding home this talking point: Obama Reemphasizes Importance of Bush Doctrine.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.