Tuesday, September 24, 2013

Obama and the UN

As luck would have it I was actually at home today to watch the POTUS speech at the UN. Good words. Convincing words. Also words that are totally out of touch with reality.

 To be fair, Obama is not the first president to truly believe that Democracy is the cure all for the world's (in particular the Mohammedan world) ills. Bush I believed it as did Clinton. Bush the Second certainly was a true believer. All of them were and are wrong.

There is nothing that can solve the problems in the Mohammedan world except the Muslims themselves. They have, thus far, proven themselves incapable of maintaining democracy in any of the "classic" Muslim nations. Afghanistan is doomed to fail and fall again into chaos. It is already there frankly. Iraq is no different likely in this regard. Democracy did not take hold in Egypt for long, and for the brief time it was in existence, it was dominated by Islamists. The lands of the "Palestinian" State have shown that extremists would be in power and there would be infighting among the "less" extreme and those even more intent on self destruction. The only lands in the region where there is some stability are virtual dictatorships. This appears the only way the Mohammedan nation can truly function and "do business" with the rest of the world. Even Iran, which is a dangerous nation no doubt, is more stable than many others. No one can say democracy is really practiced there.

The President also touched on the possibility of better relations with Iran. He did not back off the position that Iran would not be allowed to have nuclear weapons but, in the same breath, did mention that a peaceful nuclear program was not out of bounds. A foolish and na├»ve notion. Iranian "peaceful" access to nuclear power is not far removed from having the ability to weaponize the technology. A forceful president would have let it be known, in no uncertain terms, that Iran will have to cease and desist research into the technology or face the gravest possible consequences.

His "lecture" (as indeed that was what it truly was) on the subject of the Mohammedan/Israeli conflict was instructive and also wrong. He rightfully pointed out that the United States would not allow Israel to be victimized by the Muslims in the region but he also noted that the "Palestinians" are to be allowed to have their own secure state. A pipe dream. The regions that the Palestinians occupy; their "state" is doomed to failure.
 For one, it is too small without enough resources to sustain a population. It is now, frankly, a ward of  Israel. It is fractured, divided in territory as well as ideology with both the "moderates" and extremists not backing really backing off the notion that Israel does not have a right to exist and that all of the land of Israel is, in their eyes, really the land of the "Palestinian." Lip service is paid to peace with the Jewish state but it is doubtful that they (or any other Mohammedan group) truly want peace. They want dominance.

Jerusalem? The President seemed (to me) to leave open the status of Jerusalem. The reality is that Islam and Judaism are not the only religions of the world that have interest in the ancient city. This is a tough one perhaps to some but it seems that "might does make right" here and that this is truly a city to be administered by the Jewish state. No one sane is advocating keeping Muslims away from an important site in the history of their religion but a stable powerful nation state must be in control. If not Israel - who? The "international" community? As long as the holy sites of all the religions represented here are respected, then the whole of the city should be administered by the nation most capable of keeping order. Of course the fact (and it is fact) that Jerusalem is the true capital of the Jewish State is overlooked here. A bone of contention for many.....

The Jewish settlements seem to also be a bone of contention for many, including this particular president. These settlements on supposed Palestinian lands do seem to pose a political problem for all concerned. The "Zionists" among us of course believe that they are not encroaching but are claiming what is their rightful heritage. Their birthright as Jews as it were. This is a tough problem for a president, any American president, whose population is predominantly anti Muslim at this point. Many of us vividly remember the rejoice of the "Palestinians" after the attacks of Sept 11, 2001 and have no sympathy with the plight of these same "Palestinians."

What this president (or any other) need to understand perhaps is that this country has had enough of Mohammedans and their problems. The vast majority of us, while certainly horrified by the excesses supposedly perpetrated by the Syrian regime, have no further interest in giving aid or comfort to those who are in sympathy (and some directly and indirectly allied with) those who were responsible for numerous attacks on this country. Perhaps it would be best to let them slug it out?
There are however populations of Christians in these lands and perhaps they need to be protected. Or do they? So what is the answer? In the particular case of Syria, if one group has to actually be supported, would it make more sense to support the regime that, while no doubt evil, and has been a problem at times, and while fighting the Jewish State via proxy, has shown no inclination to lock horns with Israel conventionally?  Very tough geopolitical problems that, to be fair, put a president of this country in a no win situation.

A strong president would have made it clear that Iran would not have any nuclear technology whatsoever, Israel would be supported, and that intervention into Mohammedan internecine wars would only occur if there was a tangible benefit to the western world to do so and that, in most cases, the Mohammedan would be let to his own devices.


Jayhawk said...

Democracy is not a particularly natural from of government and has never really lasted any great length of time. Pretty much no ethnic peoples can handle it.

That includes the USA, which has not been a functioning democracy for at least several decades. When voters are provided with two choices, both of whom are chosen by a group of elites, that is not democracy. We are not electing the choice of the people, we are deciding between the choices of two power groups. Whatever that is, it sure as hell is not democracy.

That is excarbated when the elected choice then fails to do what he was elected to do and pays no price for that failure; is reelected in the following election. Democrats were elected to control of Congress in 2006 based on their promise to end the war in Iraq. Instead we got the "surge," and in 2008 a continued Democratic control of Congress and a Democrat in the White House.

Obama was elected on the promise of "changing Washington" by elimintaing lobbyists in governance and ending wars. Instead we got lobbyists in the Cabinet and White House staff, a "surge" in Afghainstan, Libya, and a second term for Obama without even a primary election.

Democracy? Ha.

Bartender Cabbie said...

good points

"When voters are provided with two choices, both of whom are chosen by a group of elites, that is not democracy."

You pretty much said it all right there.