Obama's apologies to the muslim community

[HappyTikiman]

In light of Obama's speech to the Muslim community I think we should have a little debate.

Intro
I live in middle Tennessee and the only talk show radio stations we have is a heavy republican oriented talk radio, and national public radio. NPR was playing the usual classical music, but its not very good while doing hard labour. On the other station. Phil Valentine, local republican talk show hero, had managed to get pretty heated about Obama's recent speech. He did mention some points that I would like to present to this forum.

Questions

1. Is the United States going to become a Muslim dominated country?

2. Will Obama's apologies be accepted by the Muslim community?

3. Should the nation worry about its president's new apologetic direction?

4. Would this help or hender the United States relations with the world community?

Debate Material

Obama's speech, scroll down on the webpage

[East of Eden]

However, I think any acknowledgements of past realities that people in the U.S. seem to ignore or be unaware of have the potential to help. Reality number one would be the CIA engineered overthrow of the democratically elected Mossadegh (sp?) in Iran in 1953 and the resulting autocratic rule of the Shah of Iran. The Shah was probably not as bad as Saddam Hussein, but he surely wasn't good and he was also corrupt.

You are ignoring the overthrow's in the context of the Cold War. We wanted Iran's oil to go to the West, not the Soviets. Ignoring the context is like criticizing FDR for supporting Stalin.

To digress somewhat, you might also consider Latin America. We supported dictators and military juntas in Cuba (Battista), Nicaragua (the Somosas), Guatemala, CHile (overthrew Allende and they got Pinochet), and El Salvador for many years.

Those authoritarian regimes we supported were much better than the totalitarian Communitst threat they faced.

We reaped Castro, the Sandinistas, and arguably Hugo Chavez among others as a result.

The aforementioned tyrants were only our fault to the extent we didn't resist them enough. Is it also our fault that Romania (for example) went Communist?

I would agree the Taliban do not share our values. However, this does not necessarily mean they hate us or support terrorism against us because of our values or at least solely because of those values. The Taliban value system is opposed to those in almost all western countries, including Switzerland, Sweden, Belgium, etc. However, Al-Qaeda with the Taliban's support did not strike these other countries, even though their values are very similar to ours.

Ever hear of the Madrid bombing?

What is the difference between us and these other countries? Why us and not them even though both the U.S. and these other countries espouse freedom, women's rights, respect for religious diversity, etc????

The difference it is the US and the UK, and not Belgium and Co., that stand up to oppression, whether that evil be Hitler or Al-Queda. For that reason Bin Laden and friends rightly see us as their enemy.

I would submit that among the biggest differences are how much power we wield as a country and how we have exercised that power in the past. Note that Britain is also a stated target of many terrorists. Again, if you study your history you will see why. Britain was instrumental in carving up the middle east after WWI. Britain reneged on its promises to Arabs who helped fight the Ottomans in WWI (see Lawrence of Arabia). Britain helped found the state of Israel, which rightly or wrongly many Arabs perceived as foisting an unwanted state on their land contrary to their previous commitments.

There is no country with a perfect foreign policy record, but I'll stack up our record against anyone else, especially against any Muslim nation. Name one we should emulate.

I challenge you to show me where there are any words of apology in the speech.

"He acknowledged the mistakes on both sides," - from our Muslim forum member.

[Furrowed Brow]

Im going to be unfair to you EoE and quote you out of context.

We wanted Iran's oil.

Ok that was I admit unfair but Id also say it is revealing of an American-centric world view. What the heck does the East/West cold war mean to a citizen of Iran. All they see is some superpower after control of THEIR oil, to the extent said superpower is willing to intervene and attempt to control THEIR system of government. Put boot on other foot. What would the peoples of the continent of North America do if some superpower wanted to control their system of government, raise taxes on tea as they please, and basically force some King on them?

Those authoritarian regimes we supported were much better than the totalitarian Communist threat they faced.

There are lots of families with missing relatives who would beg to differ. so the question is - better for who?

Ever hear of the Madrid bombing?

You can add London Bombing.

The perpetrators of the London bombing were home grown Muslims. A point that underlines there is a conflict of ideologies. However it would be simplistic to think Islam has just one ideological voice; as evidence my the hundreds of thousand taking to the streets in Iran for the last week.

Can't say for sure but maybe in a small way Obama's speech reached these folk and stiffened their resolve.

There is no country with a perfect foreign policy record, but I'll stack up our record against anyone else, especially against any Muslim nation. Name one we should emulate.

The Maldives.

[micatala]

However, I think any acknowledgements of past realities that people in the U.S. seem to ignore or be unaware of have the potential to help. Reality number one would be the CIA engineered overthrow of the democratically elected Mossadegh (sp?) in Iran in 1953 and the resulting autocratic rule of the Shah of Iran. The Shah was probably not as bad as Saddam Hussein, but he surely wasn't good and he was also corrupt.

You are ignoring the overthrow's in the context of the Cold War. We wanted Iran's oil to go to the West, not the Soviets. Ignoring the context is like criticizing FDR for supporting Stalin.

Point taken. I agree the larger context is important. However, the fact that there was such a context does not necessarily mean this context justifies our action. It also does not negate my argument which was that the reason many in Iran have a negative view of the U.S. includes this particular event. I am also sure the Iranians would not consider your comment on us wanting their oil to be too compelling either; rather the opposite. To the extent we did this for our own selfish or geopolitical reasons, they have even more reason to be unhappy.

To digress somewhat, you might also consider Latin America. We supported dictators and military juntas in Cuba (Battista), Nicaragua (the Somosas), Guatemala, CHile (overthrew Allende and they got Pinochet), and El Salvador for many years.

Those authoritarian regimes we supported were much better than the totalitarian Communitst threat they faced.

We reaped Castro, the Sandinistas, and arguably Hugo Chavez among others as a result.

The aforementioned tyrants were only our fault to the extent we didn't resist them enough. Is it also our fault that Romania (for example) went Communist?

I disagree, but I do agree we would need to consider each country separately. In fact, I disagree on two points.

First, many of these regimes were arguably not tyrranical at all. Allende for instance. The Sandinistas were also much, much better than what they replaced. They were much, much better than other regimes that we supported (like Saddam!).

Secondly, if we had gone to the mat to defend the younger Samosa in Nicaragua, we have every reason to believe the suffering of the Nicaraguan people would have continued to be much greater than it ended up being under the Sandinistas. In addition, I would claim that in the long run, because unjust regimes (nearly?) always eventually fall, we would have reaped more anger hatred and perhaps an even more negative regime.

I would agree the Taliban do not share our values. However, this does not necessarily mean they hate us or support terrorism against us because of our values or at least solely because of those values. The Taliban value system is opposed to those in almost all western countries, including Switzerland, Sweden, Belgium, etc. However, Al-Qaeda with the Taliban's support did not strike these other countries, even though their values are very similar to ours.

Ever hear of the Madrid bombing?

Of course. I did not mean to imply an abolute black or white situation. My point is that we engender much more negative feelings in many countries than other western nations because we are powerful, and we have sometimes (not always) used that power to the detriment of those countries and their peoples because of our own interests.

Perhaps you can fill us in on why Al-Qaeda targeted Spain. What was there stated reason?

What is the difference between us and these other countries? Why us and not them even though both the U.S. and these other countries espouse freedom, women's rights, respect for religious diversity, etc????

The difference it is the US and the UK, and not Belgium and Co., that stand up to oppression, whether that evil be Hitler or Al-Queda. For that reason Bin Laden and friends rightly see us as their enemy.

I can only say that this comment represents an extremely distorted and biased view of history. Yes, we have also in the past done good things through the use of our power. We did defeat Hitler. We did stem Japanese Imperialism. We did stand up to ethnic cleansing in the former Yugoslavia (along with our European allies).

However, you must realize that to someone in Iraq or Iran, these good actions are going to be seen as largely irrelevant. So what if Germany and France got saved? I'm living in poverty and squalor under a dictator that is using U.S. weapons and helicopters to oppress me and kill me fellow citizens. Why should I have a positive view of the U.S.?

Many of these people have come to see Bin Laden as a savior because he is at least battling what they see as the oppressor. It is an unfortunate fact of history (see Castro for one example) that people fighting perceived injustice often reach for help that is close to as bad, or even worse than the disease they wish to cure. We might fault them for their mis-perception of their hoped for saviors, but in my view, we need to be realistic and acknowledge why they feel so desperate that they are willing to lift up a Bin Laden or a Castro as a hero.

Just because the cure ends up being not so good does not mean that the disease did not exist in the first place.

I would submit that among the biggest differences are how much power we wield as a country and how we have exercised that power in the past. Note that Britain is also a stated target of many terrorists. Again, if you study your history you will see why. Britain was instrumental in carving up the middle east after WWI. Britain reneged on its promises to Arabs who helped fight the Ottomans in WWI (see Lawrence of Arabia). Britain helped found the state of Israel, which rightly or wrongly many Arabs perceived as foisting an unwanted state on their land contrary to their previous commitments.

There is no country with a perfect foreign policy record, but I'll stack up our record against anyone else, especially against any Muslim nation. Name one we should emulate.

You continue to miss the point. A person in Iran is not going to care what our overall record is. They are only going to care what our record is with respect to their situation.

I challenge you to show me where there are any words of apology in the speech.

"He acknowledged the mistakes on both sides," - from our Muslim forum member.

Fair enough. However, as I have shown, this is an entirely accurate statement. It is also not much of an apology. To paint this as some sort of capitulation to terrorists is ridiculous.

[East of Eden]

Ok that was I admit unfair but Id also say it is revealing of an American-centric world view.

It was meant to be. I am an American.

What the heck does the East/West cold war mean to a citizen of Iran. All they see is some superpower after control of THEIR oil, to the extent said superpower is willing to intervene and attempt to control THEIR system of government. Put boot on other foot. What would the peoples of the continent of North America do if some superpower wanted to control their system of government, raise taxes on tea as they please, and basically force some King on them?

I don't think the Arab world has done too bad since the West created the demand for their oil.

There are lots of families with missing relatives who would beg to differ. so the question is - better for who?

There are fewer missing families under an authoritarian regime than a totalitarian one.

The perpetrators of the London bombing were home grown Muslims. A point that underlines there is a conflict of ideologies. However it would be simplistic to think Islam has just one ideological voice; as evidence my the hundreds of thousand taking to the streets in Iran for the last week.

Can't say for sure but maybe in a small way Obama's speech reached these folk and stiffened their resolve.

Obama should be speaking out more for these brave folks. I would venture to say the example of newly-free Iraq next door might be stiffening their resolve also.

The Maldives.

Actually, no. From a human rights group:

"Human Rights are restricted in the Maldives. The President wields a lot of power - including the right to appoint a portion of Parliament and all judges. The press is restricted and journalists have been convicted for their statements. The Government limits freedom of assembly and association. There are significant restrictions on the freedom of religion, and women face a variety of legal and social disadvantages. Some of these restrictions are linked to the Government's observance of Shari'a (Islamic law) and other Islamic customs. The Government also restricts worker rights."

[East of Eden]

Point taken. I agree the larger context is important. However, the fact that there was such a context does not necessarily mean this context justifies our action. It also does not negate my argument which was that the reason many in Iran have a negative view of the U.S. includes this particular event. I am also sure the Iranians would not consider your comment on us wanting their oil to be too compelling either; rather the opposite. To the extent we did this for our own selfish or geopolitical reasons, they have even more reason to be unhappy.

The reason the crazed leader of Iran (and perhaps many Iranians) hates the US is because we are a powerful 'infidel' country standing in the way of his Islamofascist agenda. Do you really think things would be different if we didn't overthro whats his name in '53?

I disagree, but I do agree we would need to consider each country separately. In fact, I disagree on two points.

First, many of these regimes were arguably not tyrranical at all. Allende for instance. The Sandinistas were also much, much better than what they replaced.

I disagree with both your examples. I would prefer Gen. Pinochet and the prosperity he brought to Chile over this: http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Co ... lende.html

They were much, much better than other regimes that we supported (like Saddam!).

Again, you're not looking at in context. We at one time supported Iraq against Iran.

Secondly, if we had gone to the mat to defend the younger Samosa in Nicaragua, we have every reason to believe the suffering of the Nicaraguan people would have continued to be much greater than it ended up being under the Sandinistas. In addition, I would claim that in the long run, because unjust regimes (nearly?) always eventually fall, we would have reaped more anger hatred and perhaps an even more negative regime.

An authoritarian regime like Pinochet's or Samoza is much more likely to evolve into a democracy than a totalitarian regime like Castro's.

Of course. I did not mean to imply an abolute black or white situation. My point is that we engender much more negative feelings in many countries than other western nations because we are powerful, and we have sometimes (not always) used that power to the detriment of those countries and their peoples because of our own interests.

Perhaps you can fill us in on why Al-Qaeda targeted Spain. What was there stated reason?

To influence the election so that the soft Zapatero would win instead of Jose Maria Aznar, who took a hard line against radical Islam. I was in Madred a few days after the bombing, a friend told me that right after his arrest, one of the captured terrorists was very eager to know who won the election.

I can only say that this comment represents an extremely distorted and biased view of history. Yes, we have also in the past done good things through the use of our power. We did defeat Hitler. We did stem Japanese Imperialism. We did stand up to ethnic cleansing in the former Yugoslavia (along with our European allies).

So why is my comment distorted?

Fair enough. However, as I have shown, this is an entirely accurate statement. It is also not much of an apology. To paint this as some sort of capitulation to terrorists is ridiculous.

What is ridiculous is Obama's comparison (to paraphrase: We both have made mistakes) of the greatest nation on earth with a terrorist dictatorship.

[Furrowed Brow]

It was meant to be. I am an American.

Okay and every country is allowed to keep a clear sight of their own national interests. But America has the reputation of political interventions... that can be argued... leave a nasty taste in the mouth of those countries who have to swallow it. At best don't expect them to be thankful at worst expect a backlash.

I don't think the Arab world has done too bad since the West created the demand for their oil.

Maybe so, maybe not for all. But the question is Western and US intervention and undue influence over the internal politics of other countries that is the point. Again try boot on other foot. The US has not done too badly selling computer software and Hollywood films to the rest of the world. What if Eastern Europe backed a coup and replaced the American President with their guy to ensure they got a steady supply of their computers and films at the price they liked.

Im betting on a heck of a lot of shooting.

There are fewer missing families under an authoritarian regime than a totalitarian one.

Well we can bat that back and forth. Got any comparative figures for the death under Soviet backed regimes and US backed regimes?

Obama should be speaking out more for these brave folks. I would venture to say the example of newly-free Iraq next door might be stiffening their resolve also.

This would be the Iraq freed from Saddam Hussein who The US spent a decade supporting?

The Maldives

Actually, no. From a human rights group:

Their human rights maybe shoddy but their foreign policy is impeccable.

[East of Eden]

Okay and every country is allowed to keep a clear sight of their own national interests. But America has the reputation of political interventions...

Yes, like when we liberated Europe. I'm sure that angered the Nazis, just as our actions against radical Islam anger the Jihadists.

Maybe so, maybe not for all. But the question is Western and US intervention and undue influence over the internal politics of other countries that is the point. Again try boot on other foot. The US has not done too badly selling computer software and Hollywood films to the rest of the world. What if Eastern Europe backed a coup and replaced the American President with their guy to ensure they got a steady supply of their computers and films at the price they liked.

Im betting on a heck of a lot of shooting.

It wouldn't cause me to strap on a suicide bomb..

Well we can bat that back and forth. Got any comparative figures for the death under Soviet backed regimes and US backed regimes?

There were 100,000,000 victims of Communism last century.

This would be the Iraq freed from Saddam Hussein who The US spent a decade supporting?

Yes, so what? We also waged the Cold War after supporting Stalin.

Their human rights maybe shoddy but their foreign policy is impeccable.

I think they're too insignificant to be a force for good or bad.

[I AM ALL I AM]

He didn't seem too apologetic. We shouldn't think that owning up to one's mistakes if "bad," that's a bit arrogant. He acknowledged the mistakes on both sides, and pressed the issue that me must not go back in history, but we have to look back in history to move forward.

I am Muslim and of all the Muslims that I've spoken with, they were pleased with his speech.

His attempted moral equivalency (mistakes on 'both sides') was ludicrous. Where is the US counter action to 9/11 or the thousands of other crimes by the Islamofascists?

G'day East of Eden.

What proof do you have that "Islamofascists" perpetrated 9/11 ?

[East of Eden]

He didn't seem too apologetic. We shouldn't think that owning up to one's mistakes if "bad," that's a bit arrogant. He acknowledged the mistakes on both sides, and pressed the issue that me must not go back in history, but we have to look back in history to move forward.

I am Muslim and of all the Muslims that I've spoken with, they were pleased with his speech.

His attempted moral equivalency (mistakes on 'both sides') was ludicrous. Where is the US counter action to 9/11 or the thousands of other crimes by the Islamofascists?

G'day East of Eden.

What proof do you have that "Islamofascists" perpetrated 9/11 ?

What else do you call Al-Queda and the Taliban?

[micatala]

An authoritarian regime like Pinochet's or Samoza is much more likely to evolve into a democracy than a totalitarian regime like Castro's.

Before replying to the rest of the post from which this is from, can I ask East of Eden to clarify the difference between a totalitarian regime and and authoritarian regime?


I will note that the Samosa's were in power for something like 50 years and no real democracy in sight. The Sandinistas were in power for something like a decade before elections occurred. I could check on the exact timing. Still, this one example seems to contradict your statement above.

I do not recall that Pinochet's regime was developing into a democracy any faster than Castro's before he was removed, but again, I will check.