• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Will Obama's Cairo speech motivate a new set of terror attacks in the ME?

Will Obama's cairo speech motivate a new set of terror attacks in the ME?

  • Yes

    Votes: 3 11.5%
  • No

    Votes: 23 88.5%

  • Total voters
    26
  • Poll closed .
If you really didn't need Israel you wouldn't be in an alliance with it.

I wasn't aware we needed Luxembourg. But we are in an alliance with them. Does the US really need Romania? Hell no. But we're in an alliance with them. Estonia as well. The US is in a great many alliances with countries it does not need.

You're simply calling your leaders fools.

They are. What's your point?

What I've meant with that line was that the US may be able to live without Israel, but that doesn't mean they don't need Israel.

How do you define "need?"
 
You are surprised that a crowd would respond when some one says something positive about them? I am a fan of pro wrestling, and there is a term in wrestling called "cheap pop". That is getting applause by saying something good about the local city or sports team. People react to things like that, and there is nothing wrong with that,
I don't think you understand.
Firstly, I'm not surprised at all.
Secondly, I think that applauding only what you support makes the speech useless.
For example, when the Israeli-Palestinian issue was brought up, the crowd was silent when Obama was in favor of Israel and cheered when he was in favor of the Palestinians.
It was quite remarkable really, Obama says a pro-Israeli line, crowd silent, Obama continues to a pro-palestinian line, crowd cheers.
 
You are right, it's not a one way street, but it is a seriously slanted street. We give much more than we get, and we can easily live without Israel.

mmmm I'm not so sure. I don't think Obama could withdrawal support from Israel without causing major disorder among our citizens. Nor do I think Congress would allow him to threaten them in any genuine way. What he can do is talk in a way that aims to change or cause a shift in popular opinion of Israel but even that would be alarming.

I don't foresee him doing anything. That's why his chosen language in Cairo was a tad disingenuous.

Really he's saying, "Stop," but he means exactly what Bush meant. The settlements are an issue, one of many issues, and we don't support them. That said we're not going to do anything other than verbally disparage them. Overblown inflammatory speech is not the same as a policy shift or change.
 
I don't think you understand.
Firstly, I'm not surprised at all.
Secondly, I think that applauding only what you support makes the speech useless.
For example, when the Israeli-Palestinian issue was brought up, the crowd was silent when Obama was in favor of Israel and cheered when he was in favor of the Palestinians.
It was quite remarkable really, Obama says a pro-Israeli line, crowd silent, Obama continues to a pro-palestinian line, crowd cheers.

So when a crowd acts like a crowd acts, it makes the speech given to the crowd worthless. That makes sense...
 
I wasn't aware we needed Luxembourg. But we are in an alliance with them. Does the US really need Romania? Hell no. But we're in an alliance with them. Estonia as well. The US is in a great many alliances with countries it does not need.
Does any of the above states receive any aid from the US?
They are. What's your point?
My bad, forgot how hateful some Americans are about their own government. :2razz:
How do you define "need?"
I do not define words thank you very much.
 
mmmm I'm not so sure. I don't think Obama could withdrawal support from Israel without causing major disorder among our citizens. Nor do I think Congress would allow him to threaten them in any genuine way. What he can do is talk in a way that aims to change or cause a shift in popular opinion of Israel but even that would be alarming.

I don't foresee him doing anything. That's why his chosen language in Cairo was a tad disingenuous.

Really he's saying, "Stop," but he means exactly what Bush meant. The settlements are an issue, one of many issues, and we don't support them. That said we're not going to do anything other than verbally disparage them. Overblown inflammatory speech is not the same as a policy shift or change.

I am not talking political realities. The reality is we are going to keep doing what we are doing. What we should do is somewhat different.

By the way, file this one away as another example I can point to when I get accused of blindly following Obama.
 
Wrong, we just have never pushed away, for political and other reasons.

Yes, I am calling them fools.

Wrong, we do not need Israel.
I rest my case. :doh
 
From most intel reports that have made way into the media, since Obama has taken office new recruits for Al-Qaida have been down, the Taliban as well. Thus, bin Laden's new recording to tell Muslims not to trust Obama. So I would argue that his stance is working.

Why do you say that? Can you cite the verse in the Koran the tells muslims to not harm jellyfish and other spineless critters?
 
You couldn't tell a case even if it was under your nose. ;)

Do you always end up resorting to personal insults when you lose an argument?
 
Obama's speech was great. He was very well received, he seemed very sincere, and I think that those in attendance picked up on that. Obama, more than any President in recent history, has more of a chance in extracting positive results (for the U.S.) out of his foreign policy in the Middle East.
 
It is called building new settlements.
Hand them condoms. If they want children, leave and go into a city. Why is it so difficult to comprehend that is NOT their land to play with?

It is Israel's land.

They're the victors in the war the nations that used to possess the land started.

Your rationale would say that the United States shouldn't have occupied and developed California after the Mexican American war.

Nuts to that.
 
Lerxst, reread your post sir.
 
From President Obama's speech:



This is somehow weaker because he did not use the word "terrorist"?

Yes.

Did he say "muslim extremists"? No, he said "violent extremists", as if violence is a religion. Did he say "muslim terrorists"? No, he never once linked the two, even though if a global word association poll was held, the word "terrorist" would follow "muslim" in the minds of most non-muslims.

The tensions between the muslims and the civilized world will ease when the muslims start refusing the presence of terrorists in their midst. So long as they continue to coddle them, sane people will not view any of them as anything except extremist archaic anarchic barbarians.
 
Obama's speech was great. He was very well received, he seemed very sincere, and I think that those in attendance picked up on that. Obama, more than any President in recent history, has more of a chance in extracting positive results (for the U.S.) out of his foreign policy in the Middle East.

I define "positive result for the US" in the Middle East as the extermination of terrorists, religious freedom in feudalistic muslim nations, woman's liberation, and an end to anti-west bigotry.

Any of y'all think any of that is going to happen in your lifetime?
 
Yes it is weaker.
Terror is a stronger word than violence, and killing people just because they belong to a certain nation or culture(the west) is not simply violence.
You're American. Was 9/11 simply violence for you?

Simply speaking, yes...9/11 was violence. There is always a reason behind these things. Not using the word terrorism is a strategy of reducing the attention being given to the perpetrators.

Terrorist acts seek international attention as a affect multiplier. Killing one man is not that big of a deal. Killing one man, sending out a video tape of the act, and having your groups name and the act broadcast worldwide in a number of media outlets becomes a big enough deal that it will spurn government to stand up and make statement to the media. It makes the operational capabilities of the group appear larger than they really are, it boosts the image that they are force to be reckoned with internationally. It's smoke and mirrors in most cases.

I don't want the President of the U.S. giving anymore reference to these people that he absolutely has to. I don't want him talking about their acts, I don't want him talking about their motivations, I don't want him saying anything that the enemy could spin. If anything I want them announcing only confirmed kills and captures on terrorist operatives, giving only those details that would make the terrorists worry that we had black clad executioners stalking them where they sleep.
 
I define "positive result for the US" in the Middle East as the extermination of terrorists, religious freedom in feudalistic muslim nations, woman's liberation, and an end to anti-west bigotry.

Any of y'all think any of that is going to happen in your lifetime?

I think those are good things too.


We differ on the mechanics of how to get there. Nothing has worked to date. I'm all for trying a different approach.
 
Simply speaking, yes...9/11 was violence. There is always a reason behind these things. Not using the word terrorism is a strategy of reducing the attention being given to the perpetrators.

Terrorist acts seek international attention as a affect multiplier. Killing one man is not that big of a deal. Killing one man, sending out a video tape of the act, and having your groups name and the act broadcast worldwide in a number of media outlets becomes a big enough deal that it will spurn government to stand up and make statement to the media. It makes the operational capabilities of the group appear larger than they really are, it boosts the image that they are force to be reckoned with internationally. It's smoke and mirrors in most cases.

I don't want the President of the U.S. giving anymore reference to these people that he absolutely has to. I don't want him talking about their acts, I don't want him talking about their motivations, I don't want him saying anything that the enemy could spin. If anything I want them announcing only confirmed kills and captures on terrorist operatives, giving only those details that would make the terrorists worry that we had black clad executioners stalking them where they sleep.
I can agree with most of it.
But the choice of words in such an important speech will have its future side effects.
Well then you should refrain in this thread because you certainly didn't "win."
Who the heck died and made you a judge? :?
 
Back
Top Bottom