Obama, the Warmongering Imperialist

[Skeptic]

In his inagural speech, Obama declared America is "willing to lead the world again" and warned that it will "defeat terrorists" and "its enemies".

If Bush had done the very same thing, he would have been instantly condemned by this forum, and by many in the mainstream media, as an imperialist -- who died and made the USA the world leader?! -- and as a warmonger -- surely such talk about defeating America's enemies is a "code for an impending attack on Iran" (or "sending more troops into the quagmire in Iraq", or whatever). Alternatively, if none of that could stick, Bush could always have been derided as making "empty brags" and "hollow promises" that merely "disguise America's weakness", or some such.

Now that it is Obama, and not Bush, making the speech, the obvious truth -- that Obama merely gave a rather bland (if certainly well-presented) ceremonial speech, neither really threathening anybody nor promoting imperialism -- is once more seen in the mainstream media. Also, another obvious truth -- that the reason Obama's speech was "empty rhetoric" was not due to his stupidity or cupidity but simply because ceremonial speeches given in pre-planned formal events usually ARE "empty rhetoric" (that's what being "ceremonial" MEANS)-- is duly, if belatedly, recognized.

This is what "Bush derangement syndrome" was -- the compulsion, on part of most of the Mainstream Media, to see anything Bush said and did in the worst possible light on the slightest, indeed without any, justification, and even if it completely contradicts basic common sense, let alone decency.

 

[Cleon]

If Bush had done the very same thing, he would have been instantly condemned by this forum

Of course he would've. The forum would've banded together, and issued a swift condemnation, approved by the Central Committee. Each and every member would be required to study said memorandum and use it as part of their political discourse.

Amazing how people think "if person X did Y, then you'd be saying Z" constitutes some sort of logical reasoning.

It doesn't. It's really just making crap up.

 

[Shalamar]

Actually, Bush does have a background of such things. a couple wars, after all. A pattern begins.

Obama is a fresh slate. While some may be concerned, most are willing to see what happens first. Its only his first day. Lets give him a week before yelling at him for starting wars.

 

[Upchurch]

If Bush had done the very same thing, he would have been instantly condemned by this forum, {snip} as an imperialist

Is that true, or is it just your perception?

I don't know the answer, but I'm curious what you are basing that on. Surely Bush has said something similar over his 8 years in the top office. Can you find an example of that reaction "by this forum"?

My perception is that, other than your random over-the-top crazies, criticisms of Bush on this board have been much more considered and reasonable than that.

I'll agree that Bush no longer gets automatic benefit of the doubt, but he worked very to lose it.

 

[Upchurch]

Amazing how people think "if person X did Y, then you'd be saying Z" constitutes some sort of logical reasoning.

That's not logical reasoning. It's a claim. It may be true or it may not.

What we require now is for Skeptic to support his claim.

 

[Cleon]

That's not logical reasoning. It's a claim. It may be true or it may not.

It's a claim based on nothing beyond a preconceived notion, and with little-to-no room to substantiate, given the fact that it's presented as a hypothetical scenario. "If Bush had done the very same thing..."

It is, in other words, an empty claim. More of a whine, really.

What we require now is for Skeptic to support his claim.

Yeah, I'll be holding my breath for that one...

 

[Thunder]

I predict Obama will invade ZERO countries..and capture or kill Bin Laden.

 

[Chaos]

It's a claim based on nothing beyond a preconceived notion, and with little-to-no room to substantiate, given the fact that it's presented as a hypothetical scenario. "If Bush had done the very same thing..."

Unfalsifyable, too. Hard to reconcile with the usernames some people pick for themselves.

It is, in other words, an empty claim. More of a whine, really.

It is also, you might remember, standard operating procedure for said poster, and has in the past been used to condemn people he knows NOTHING about, indeed whole nations, as irredeemably EVIL and justify his wish for them to die a slow and gruesome death, all the while claiming the moral high ground.

Yeah, I'll be holding my breath for that one...

Suit yourself. Me, I´m holding my nose instead... phew!

 

[Upchurch]

I predict Obama will invade ZERO countries..and capture or kill Bin Laden.

I assume you mean "ZERO countries we aren't already currently invading"? If so, I would agree with the first part.

As for Bin Laden, I think it is more likely he will die "in the wild". Hopefully, it will be a painful and ignominious death, too. Maybe in the mud with some pigs. That'd be nice.

 

[applecorped]

Ahh, the sweet smell of perceived superiority.

 

[lupus_in_fabula]

Well, it usually helps to study the context wherein certain utterances occur.

Thus, when it comes to "willing to lead the world again" the context is the following (emphasis mine):

As for our common defense, we reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals. Our Founding Fathers, faced with perils we can scarcely imagine, drafted a charter to assure the rule of law and the rights of man, a charter expanded by the blood of generations. Those ideals still light the world, and we will not give them up for expedience's sake. And so to all other peoples and governments who are watching today, from the grandest capitals to the small village where my father was born: know that America is a friend of each nation and every man, woman, and child who seeks a future of peace and dignity, and that we are ready to lead once more.

...and when it comes to "defeat terrorists" and "its enemies":

We are the keepers of this legacy. Guided by these principles once more, we can meet those new threats that demand even greater effort - even greater cooperation and understanding between nations. We will begin to responsibly leave Iraq to its people, and forge a hard-earned peace in Afghanistan. With old friends and former foes, we will work tirelessly to lessen the nuclear threat, and roll back the specter of a warming planet. We will not apologize for our way of life, nor will we waver in its defense, and for those who seek to advance their aims by inducing terror and slaughtering innocents, we say to you now that our spirit is stronger and cannot be broken; you cannot outlast us, and we will defeat you.

 

[GreyICE]

Actually I thought it was the fact that Bush started a war with a country incapable of threatening America and with no connections to the Al Qaeda that made him a warmongering imperialist, not some speech.

Oh wait, crap... that occurred in reality. No wonder the damn liberal media was all over it.

 

[dirtywick]

I assume you mean "ZERO countries we aren't already currently invading"? If so, I would agree with the first part.

As for Bin Laden, I think it is more likely he will die "in the wild". Hopefully, it will be a painful and ignominious death, too. Maybe in the mud with some pigs. That'd be nice.

He's not a real big fan of Pakistan I'm told.

 

[Upchurch]

Well, it usually helps to study the context wherein certain utterances occur.

Thus, when it comes to "willing to lead the world again" the context is the following (emphasis mine):

As for our common defense, we reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals. Our Founding Fathers, faced with perils we can scarcely imagine, drafted a charter to assure the rule of law and the rights of man, a charter expanded by the blood of generations. Those ideals still light the world, and we will not give them up for expedience's sake. And so to all other peoples and governments who are watching today, from the grandest capitals to the small village where my father was born: know that America is a friend of each nation and every man, woman, and child who seeks a future of peace and dignity, and that we are ready to lead once more.

...and when it comes to "defeat terrorists" and "its enemies":

We are the keepers of this legacy. Guided by these principles once more, we can meet those new threats that demand even greater effort - even greater cooperation and understanding between nations. We will begin to responsibly leave Iraq to its people, and forge a hard-earned peace in Afghanistan. With old friends and former foes, we will work tirelessly to lessen the nuclear threat, and roll back the specter of a warming planet. We will not apologize for our way of life, nor will we waver in its defense, and for those who seek to advance their aims by inducing terror and slaughtering innocents, we say to you now that our spirit is stronger and cannot be broken; you cannot outlast us, and we will defeat you.

Who died and made the USA the world leader?! Surely such talk about defeating America's enemies is a code for an impending attack on Iran AND "sending more troops into the quagmire in Iraq".

What a warmongering imperialist Obama is!!!

[/sarcasm]

 

[quixotecoyote]

In my quest to make my response the forum standard response, I cross-post:

Arguments of the form "Your guy said something bad and and you didn't care/responded reasonably, but if my guy did the same thing you'd behave like a raving lunatic" are always invalid.

You can't know how we'd react and accusing us of hypocrisy because you think we'd behave hypocritically is absurd.

If you can point to an actual example of hypocrisy, fine, do so. If it's on me, I'll do my best to change for the better. However, I seriously doubt you can do so, because you had to imagine us doing something wrong in order to complain about that.

Think about that for a second. To make this argument, you first imagined people being hypocrites, and then, based solely on that, you blamed them for actually being hypocrites.

I don't think you can defend that kind of argument.


Specific to your post, you'd have to find people calling Bush a warmongering imperialist solely for using those two phrases or rephrase your claim.

 

[Cleon]

In my quest to make my response the forum standard response, I cross-post:

Arguments of the form "Your guy said something bad and and you didn't care/responded reasonably, but if my guy did the same thing you'd behave like a raving lunatic" are always invalid.

You can't know how we'd react and accusing us of hypocrisy because you think we'd behave hypocritically is absurd.

If you can point to an actual example of hypocrisy, fine, do so. If it's on me, I'll do my best to change for the better. However, I seriously doubt you can do so, because you had to imagine us doing something wrong in order to complain about that.

Think about that for a second. To make this argument, you first imagined people being hypocrites, and then, based solely on that, you blamed them for actually being a hypocrites.

I don't think you can defend that kind of argument.


Specifically to this post, you'd have to find people calling Bush a warmongering imperialist solely for using those two phrases or rephrase your claim.

You expressed my thoughts much better than I did. Thank you.

 

[quixotecoyote]

You expressed my thoughts much better than I did. Thank you.

Quite welcome.

Pay no attention to those typos behind the edit.

 

[Molinaro]

I predict Obama will invade ZERO countries..and capture or kill Bin Laden.

I hope they put it on pay per view and let him do it with a bat or something.

 

[Texas]

I predict Obama will invade ZERO countries..and capture or kill Bin Laden.

Assuming OBL is still alive he is going to have to invade Pakistan to capture him. Be that as it may Obama has now stated that it is no longer necessary to capture or Kill OBL since he is powerless and hiding out. Given that there is little or no reason to stay in Afghanistan and I predict he will withdraw from there soon.

 

[Upchurch]

Assuming OBL is still alive he is going to have to invade Pakistan to capture him.

There are other ways. It would take a phenomenal negotiator, but there are other ways.

Be that as it may Obama has now stated that it is no longer necessary to capture or Kill OBL

"...for national defense." There are other reasons to continue the hunt.