[machpamb]

Doubt it will change much but at least it is a positive signal to the arab world. Lets hope for the best...

[KhJOHbTM]

He was nearly apologetic. Exactly the wrong message to send.

[SasV7ReJ]

Obama apologetic, Sloww apoplectic.

[phernikas]

didn't see the speech. Long as he didn't do any stupid bows again, I see no problem with the wording of it.

bowing

[huylibizonoff]

He came across as weak.

Alrighty then! Quote specific parts of the speech for us, to point out exactly where he has come across as being "weak."

One, two, three . . .

go.

[hwood]

You know who else supports tera-wrists? The Hecatoncheire bracer company. They just hit ten billion sales...

[DoctorTDent]

Alrighty then! Quote specific parts of the speech for us, to point out exactly where he has come across as being "weak."

One, two, three . . .

go.

I'll bite. I only skimmed the speech, but I think the part where he talked about woman's rights was an example of how it was kind of weak:

The sixth issue -- the sixth issue that I want to address is women's rights.

(APPLAUSE)

I know...

(APPLAUSE)

I know, and you can tell from this audience, that there is a healthy debate about this issue. I reject the view of some in the West that a woman who chooses to cover her hair is somehow less equal. But I do believe that a woman who is denied an education is denied equality.

(APPLAUSE)

And it is no coincidence that countries where women are well- educated are far more likely to be prosperous.

Now let me be clear, issues of women's equality are by no means simply an issue for Islam. In Turkey, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Indonesia, we've seen Muslim-majority countries elect a woman to lead.

Meanwhile, the struggle for women's equality continues in many aspects of American life and in countries around the world. I am convinced that our daughters can contribute just as much to society as our sons. He starts off raising the issue, saying there's a healthy debate, and considers that education is the key to equality. I'm not sure that alone is the solution, but fine. Then he goes on to almost praise states like Pakistan and Bangladesh while offering criticism of America. That strikes me as a foolish way of trying to raise the issue while offering those who disagree with it an easy way of avoiding the issue by either pointing at some isolated successes or by criticizing us.

"Oh, lets raise the topic of women's rights. You guys have work to do but you're doing great jobs in these countries, and you know what, we've got a lot of work to do to fix the problem in our own country".

[pymnConyelell]

More seriously though, can anyone here point to any substantive fruit borne out of the Apology tour both in Europe or in the ME?

[lopaayd]

I'll bite. I only skimmed the speech, but I think the part where he talked about woman's rights was an example of how it was kind of weak:



He starts off raising the issue, saying there's a healthy debate, and considers that education is the key to equality. I'm not sure that alone is the solution, but fine. Then he goes on to almost praise states like Pakistan and Bangladesh while offering criticism of America. That strikes me as a foolish way of trying to raise the issue while offering those who disagree with it an easy way of avoiding the issue by either pointing at some isolated successes or by criticizing us.

"Oh, lets raise the topic of women's rights. You guys have work to do but you're doing great jobs in these countries, and you know what, we've got a lot of work to do to fix the problem in our own country".

What's even worse, is the deplorable, inhumane situation gays and lesbians find themselves in, in many of these Muslim countries (such as Iraq and Saudi Arabia).

[VINPELA]

He starts off raising the issue, saying there's a healthy debate, and considers that education is the key to equality. I'm not sure that alone is the solution, but fine. Then he goes on to almost praise states like Pakistan and Bangladesh while offering criticism of America. That strikes me as a foolish way of trying to raise the issue while offering those who disagree with it an easy way of avoiding the issue by either pointing at some isolated successes or by criticizing us.

"Oh, lets raise the topic of women's rights. You guys have work to do but you're doing great jobs in these countries, and you know what, we've got a lot of work to do to fix the problem in our own country".

Lecturing, condemning and moralizing, especially when you have plenty of skeletons in your own closet doesn't work. Never has, never will. You can't expect someone will like you and listen to you if you go in with the attitude of "you are backwards and wrong, and an evil doer. You better do exactly what I tell you to do."

Focusing only on the good of America and only on the bad of the Muslim world is a disastrous, arrogant combination. Any discussion like this has to start with honesty. Honesty requires that we recognize the good parts of the Muslim world and the bad parts of America. Only through such honesty will people fully listen to a presentation of the good parts of America and the bad parts of the Muslim world.

Being honest and frank takes a great deal of honor, integrity, and humility. Qualities that have been absent recently in American foreign policy. I think it is a refreshing change. Not only is this good on principle, but it will, I believe, yield better results.

[tigoCeree]

Summary of the speech:

[SypeKifef]

Lecturing, condemning and moralizing, especially when you have plenty of skeletons in your own closet doesn't work. Never has, never will. You can't expect someone will like you and listen to you if you go in with the attitude of "you are backwards and wrong, and an evil doer. You better do exactly what I tell you to do."

Focusing only on the good of America and only on the bad of the Muslim world is a disastrous, arrogant combination. Any discussion like this has to start with honesty. Honesty requires that we recognize the good parts of the Muslim world and the bad parts of America. Only through such honesty will people fully listen to a presentation of the good parts of America and the bad parts of the Muslim world.

Being honest and frank takes a great deal of honor, integrity, and humility. Qualities that have been absent recently in American foreign policy. I think it is a refreshing change. Not only is this good on principle, but it will, I believe, yield better results.

Jane, you ignorant slut. You don't do either in foreign relations. Save the whiney stuff for Oprah.

[thomaskkk]

He came across as weak.

Obama is the anti-Bush.

[Blahhhshsh]

Obama is the anti-Bush.

Bush came off as weak too (or, even if he didn't, the incompetency of his administration sure did).

[Jimambol]

The thing is, how is this speech any different from things that previous presidents said? It's just useless talk.

Of course people like peace in the middle east, fewer religious fanatics, and an end to totalitarian regimes. People have said it for years but it's nothing will ever happen because the middle east is populated by too many insane f*cks who uphold millennia long grudges. Hell, even Palestinians in the West Bank can't even get along with Palestinians in Gaza despite having the same cause. All Obama does is say two words in a foreign language and the media acts like it is some fabulous new beginning of international peace and prosperity.

I would have preferred if Obama tried something different, like staying out of the mess for a change. It's getting tiresome dealing with the Islamic world.

[Tumarimmicdak]

This was PR. What amuses me about the right wingers here and elsewhere who had a knee-jerk negative response to this speech is that from my perspective it's almost as if they don't want the US to have good international PR. Good international PR?

What exactly is good? Good for everybody else?

[M4tHkBw2]

Lecturing, condemning and moralizing, especially when you have plenty of skeletons in your own closet doesn't work. Never has, never will. You can't expect someone will like you and listen to you if you go in with the attitude of "you are backwards and wrong, and an evil doer. You better do exactly what I tell you to do." It worked with Meiji Japan. Gunboat diplomacy had a huge effect on their insular society.

Are you suggesting it would have been better had the Americans not intervened to open them up under Admiral Perry?

[ORDERCHEAPVIAGRASOFTWARE]

Terrorism is hardly a state-level problem mainly (re-Cairo speech).

If we are going to restrict this to the Muslim Countries, how are Iranian and Syrian support of Hamas and Hezbolah in both arms and funding not State level issues? How was Pakistan's reluctance to attack AQ safe havens in thier contry not a State level problem for the US until the Taliban finally pushed the Pakistan military too far?

Furthermore, what's the benefit of highlighting problems with the US vs the instances the US has come to the aid of Muslim peoples all over the planet both militarially and through aid programs?

[UBJ3kvP1]

If we are going to restrict this to the Muslim Countries, how are Iranian and Syrian support of Hamas and Hezbolah in both arms and funding not State level issues? How was Pakistan's reluctance to attack AQ safe havens in thier contry not a State level problem for the US until the Taliban finally pushed the Pakistan military too far?

These are state level issues obviously, but that doesn't mean that those are the only issues re terrorism. Certainly they were not what I had in mind. You can bring lots of other actors in to fight terror militarily, but as long there's enough support (below the state-level) for the goals of terrorist orgs it seems difficult to stop terror that way. And support for those does have much to do with how the US or the "West" in general is perceived as the big satan or somesuch (if that belief has anything to do with reality doesn't matter much if enough people act according to it).

Furthermore, what's the benefit of highlighting problems with the US vs the instances the US has come to the aid of Muslim peoples all over the planet both militarially and through aid programs? Speaking out about probs is the usual way to discuss them and subsequently find solutions for them, me thinks, but I may be a bit naive

[dayclaccikere]

I couldn't possibly care less how much "teh peoples" support an organization deemed to be terrorist. They only become dangerous to the international system when given the tacit support of State level actors.

That's quite a statement. Had the guys blowing up stuff in London or Madrid concrete state-level support? Sure, it didn't bring down the international system immediately. Still it obviously poses a problem when people go around blowing up stuff in our cities I think.