The obama doctrine:

sonofliberty
sonofliberty Members Posts: 501
edited March 2011 in The Social Lounge
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hUXEiwJiKj4Finally got a chance to watch the speech couple mins ago and I'm kinda confused on what dude is saying. Obama is one of the greatest speakers ever but the speech was as if he spent 20 min describing the trailer to a movie. He basically explained why we are there without explaining why we are there. I mean, I support Obama but I feel as though a lot of what we've seen in the last 2 weeks has been propaganda galore. Reminds me of Iraq a lot.

The Obama Doctrine to me is basically trying to be a player and spectator at the same time.We are either committed to our morals or not, you can't please everyone. But the Pres speech seems to be patting himself on the back for something that it seemed like he didn't want or mean to do. We need to pick an identity and stick with it as far as our stance in the M.E. and N.A. How can you paint a picture of moral superiority saying that "other countries turned a blind eye" and then say that future intervention will be on a case by case basis. Sames like a double standard. If we are not able to "police" indiscriminately are we really who we say we are?

Main Points:
6:50 - "It was not in our national interest to let that happen" (massacre in Benghazi)
8:30 - Justification
9:20 - New Limited Role
10:20 - Original Limited Role
10:40 - ?
11:05 - Original Limited Role
14:00 - Obama Doctrine
20:20 - Obama Doctrine
22:50 - Tap Dancing

Comments

  • Hyde Parke
    Hyde Parke Members Posts: 2,573 ✭✭✭
    edited March 2011
    what do you want him to be? a radical? choose something to quell people's fears? or do you want him to tell it as he really sees it from his position? this is real life, not a movie.
  • sonofliberty
    sonofliberty Members Posts: 501
    edited March 2011
    Hyde Parke wrote: »
    what do you want him to be? a radical? choose something to quell people's fears? or do you want him to tell it as he really sees it from his position? this is real life, not a movie.

    I'm not sure what part of what I said you are addressing. I was basically talking about how the speech has a lot moral aspects to it yet our policy is more about interests than morals. Was our justification for going in because A.) it was the right thing to do B.) all the stars were aligned C.) we have an interest in the conflict D.) all of the above ??? I'm leaning towards B more so than D , and if that is the cause then we really can't be painting this picture of "America does not stand for ....such such and such" when chances are we might not have gone in there to begin with.
  • Jonas.dini
    Jonas.dini Confirm Email Posts: 2,507 ✭✭
    edited March 2011
    I don't think anyone that pragmatic can be said to have a doctrine
  • Jonas.dini
    Jonas.dini Confirm Email Posts: 2,507 ✭✭
    edited March 2011
    The way the New York Times described his doctrine based on this speech is:

    The US will unilaterally act if its vital national interests are at stake, but in matters of human rights intervention the only way we're on board is if there's a strong multinational coalition.
  • playmaker88
    playmaker88 Members Posts: 67,905 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited March 2011
    Jonas.dini wrote: »
    The way the New York Times described his doctrine based on this speech is:

    The US will unilaterally act if its vital national interests are at stake, but in matters of human rights intervention the only way we're on board is if there's a strong multinational coalition.

    Yeah pretty much what i got fro mwatching last night.. i think the bolded will change due to whatever circumstances arise..

    But basically what i get is its a divorce from the cowboy deplomacy,, and yah it was crystal clear that interest will be protected.I know that gets a bad rap but at the same time it the world we live in. For better or worse.. usually better hes gonna think long and hard about every decison he makes.. If you dont repsect anything about him or his politics yo have to clap it up for him for critically thinking and having a meeting of the minds. Instead of pressing the proverbial button..
  • SoutCity
    SoutCity Members Posts: 1,901 ✭✭
    edited March 2011
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hUXEiwJiKj4Finally got a chance to watch the speech couple mins ago and I'm kinda confused on what dude is saying. Obama is one of the greatest speakers ever but the speech was as if he spent 20 min describing the trailer to a movie. He basically explained why we are there without explaining why we are there. I mean, I support Obama but I feel as though a lot of what we've seen in the last 2 weeks has been propaganda galore. Reminds me of Iraq a lot.

    The Obama Doctrine to me is basically trying to be a player and spectator at the same time.We are either committed to our morals or not, you can't please everyone. But the Pres speech seems to be patting himself on the back for something that it seemed like he didn't want or mean to do. We need to pick an identity and stick with it as far as our stance in the M.E. and N.A. How can you paint a picture of moral superiority saying that "other countries turned a blind eye" and then say that future intervention will be on a case by case basis. Sames like a double standard. If we are not able to "police" indiscriminately are we really who we say we are?

    Main Points:
    6:50 - "It was not in our national interest to let that happen" (massacre in Benghazi)
    8:30 - Justification
    9:20 - New Limited Role
    10:20 - Original Limited Role
    10:40 - ?
    11:05 - Original Limited Role
    14:00 - Obama Doctrine
    20:20 - Obama Doctrine
    22:50 - Tap Dancing

    I was telling my mother the same thing. All she could was defend Obama.
  • tru_m.a.c
    tru_m.a.c Members Posts: 9,091 ✭✭✭✭
    edited March 2011
    smh @ y'all gettin sucked into the labeling by calling it the "obama doctrine."

    Our generation looooves to name stuff. It's like y'all dream of being in the history books. You know in 40 yrs somebody's gonna rant about being the first person to call it the "obama doctrine."

    Anyway...first "Obamacare"...now the "Obama Doctrine"...if y'all don't see the pattern of his haters symbolically naming divisive issues after him, you are crazy