Saturday, March 1, 2008

Some thoughts on Barack Obama and what his presidency would mean for this country


I read a post by Iraqi Mojo earlier about Barack Obama and his surging popularity, along with the challenges he could be facing (his middle name among other things). Well anyway, it got me thinking "what if this guy actually wings the presidential election this November?" After all, he's poised to crush Hillary Clinton in the upcoming primaries, and more and more Americans seem to be desperate for "change" these days.

To give my personal opinion, I like Obama. I think he is a good, honest man who for the most part stands up for what he believes in. He's managed to attract Americans from all walks of life and seems to have the ability to be a uniter, as opposed to the divisive and polarizing figures presidents Bush and Clinton were and have been. However, as Dennis Miller put it on the O'Reilly Factor the other day, "He has everything except my vote." Indeed, I could not cast a vote for Obama, not at this time anyway.

Why? Well his position on Iraq is the main reason. He tends to embrace the far-left's stance, which is that the war was a big mistake and we need to get out as soon as possible. Obama has pledged to begin withdrawing troops soon after he takes office, and I believe that would be a disaster. If he would re-evaluate his position (and I don't think that will ever happen), I might be more supportive of him. To simply jump on the "Bush lied people died" bandwagon in an attempt to score votes is ignorant and just plain stupid. Obama can condemn Bush's handling of the war all he wants, but the fact is, ridding the world of a terrible human being like Saddam Hussein was justified and necessary. And even if he is opposed to going into Iraq in the first place, a seemingly intelligent man like Barack Obama should be able to foresee the humanitarian disaster that would tear the country apart if it does not have a functioning government and security force before U.S. troops begin packing up. If the so-called antiwar movement is alarmed by what the terrorists have been doing in Iraq these last few years, then they have a rude awakening coming if these evil people are able to operate unabated...and it would be a crying shame if that were to happen after so much progress has been made in Iraq. The horrific images of rebel militiamen terrorizing innocent people and burning villages across Eastern Congo and the forgotten jungles of Africa could be making their way into the streets of Baghdad if Iraqis, Americans (both liberal and conservative), and the international community do not find a way to work together in the best interest of the Iraqi people.

The other problem I have with an Obama presidency is his proposal to deal with countries like Iran, Syria and North Korea. Obama has pledged to meet Iranian officials face to face, and I also think that would be a big mistake. Giving legitimacy to the bloody theocracy in Tehran or the brutal regime of Bashar Assad in Syria would be harmful and counter-productive. In reality, if you are going to meet with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the leader of a country that has sworn to destroy Israel and arms terror groups all over the globe, why not propose a face-to-face meeting with Mullah Omar and other Taliban leaders in Afghanistan? Secondly, as strange as this sounds, President Bush is another good example of naive diplomacy. Yes, President Bush regularly holds talks with Russian President Vladimir Putin, whom he has referred to as a good man. I'm sorry Mr. President, but Vlad is not our friend...far from it in fact. While we've been trying to convince ourselves that Putin is our friend, he has consolidated power in Russia and has supported some of the world's most dangerous men, like Kim Jong Il in North Korea and Hugo Chavez in Venezuela. Numerous political opponents have also met suspicious deaths, and Russia's recent acquisition of new weaponry certainly raised questions. Therefore, if Barack Obama decided to buddy up with Ahmadinejad and reach a mutual understanding regarding his country's nuclear program, who to say a similar debacle will not happen?

In the end, Barack Obama may be the right man to solve some of the domestic problems going on here at home...he might even be able to serve as a uniter between the ideologues and haters in Washington who spend more time bashing each other than actually solving problems. However, his views on foreign policy are questionable, if not simply misguided and wrong.

10 comments:

Alex said...

That's so funny, look here http://samsonblinded.org/news/bush-schizophrenic-or-ignorant-1823 Bush don't want even talking to Iran because it keeps dissidents in jail, but that's exactly what Israel does, keeps Arab and Jewish dissidents in jails. Why don't Bush stop talking to Israel?

C.H. said...

I think there are many more reasons President Bush does not want to talk to the Mullahs in Tehran. Iran has defied the international community by ramping up its nuclear activity and funding terrorists all across the Middle East. Yes, its treatment of dissidents is one reason, but there are many others.

Read this article if you have a chance...it sums up why we are right not to talk to Iran pretty well:

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID=086FA009-AAE1-4F86-B48C-06BDA2C8EBCC

By the way, unlike Iran, Israel has been willing to make concessions...however, they get rewarded with barrages of rockets blasting their towns and suicide bombers detonating themselves in shopping malls. Obviously, Israel has made mistakes. I myself think they are playing right into Hamas' hands by bombing the Gaza strip right now.

I recently attended an United Nations event here in the Bay Area, and the keynote speaker was a Palestinian-Israeli lawyer who spent years working on behalf of Arab prisoners, all the while criticizing Israel on a regular basis...however, the last time I checked, he hadn't been detained by anyone.

I don't approve of everything the Israelis do, but I have no doubt they do it for their own survival.

Anonymous said...

C.H. said:

"Some thoughts on Barack Obama and what his presidency would mean for this country"

Correction:

Some thoughts on Barack Obama and what his presidency WILL mean for this country

C.H. said...

That's pretty funny =)

A part of me thinks your right though. However, there's a long way to go until election day and we don't know what will happen during that time.

In politics, you never know.

Anonymous said...

C'mon, that was a pretty stupid joke!

What really bugs me, though, is I think that there are still a lot of people who would never vote for a black man (or woman).

I know I mentioned this somewhere at some point (A.A probably). Are you familiar with the Bradley effect?--I'm sure this is before your time. People tell pollsters they will vote for non-white candidates, but they actually have no intention to. Possibly racism is at least partly responsible. Obama doesn't seem to suffer from this too much. So far

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bradley_effect

And of course, any scandal--real or imagined--cold cost one or both.

C.H. said...

"I think that there are still a lot of people who would never vote for a black man (or woman)."

I agree, and I think that is wrong. When I make my decision on who I will vote for, their race, religion, age, etc. is not an issue to me. If they are willing to solve problems and can put an end to the partisan fighting on capitol hill, then they have my support.

Personally, I think Mccain and Obama would be the best choice to do that. As I said though, there is really only one issue I truly disagree with Obama on, and it is the one issue that matters most to me (foreign policy).

NB said...

This is going to be a long comment.

You make a good case, and Im unsure whether to agree with you or not.

Firstly, with respect to the entry of the US into war with Iraq, Obama was prescient as to what the aftermath would entail. He specifically expressed his fears that the vaccum created by Saddams removal could cause the country to fracture along its three major fault lines, sunni-shia and kurd.

Also, with respect to Saddams removal being the justification for invasion, yes he was a dictator and an SOB, and his sons were about as psychopathic as they come. But that cannot be seen as having any real bearing on the decision to go to war. Pre-Shock and Awe, Iraq was neutered regionally and militarily, the mass killings against the Kurds had already been committed. So the belated and selective desire to remove a dictatorship and enforce human rights doesn't really strike me as the applied criterion for the war. What about Burma, Sudan, Palestine or Chechnya? Or why not just spend that gigantic war chest in Afghanistan rather than go half ass, rely on NATO and cock it up like they're doing now?

So I'm personally fairly certain that entering Iraq was immoral. Moreover it was just unwise, in terms of the leverage that was afforded to Iran. For Gods sake, its no coincidence that an Anti Iran Saddam suppressed Iraqi Shias. What did the US expect when he was gone? An anti-Iran (yet Shia dominated) Iraq? Really??!

So yeah. The case for going to war was balls. In that respect I support Obama and I take issue with Mccain's support.

But Mccains a good guy, and I like his current policy wrt staying in Iraq (Now that the US is in, its should stay in). He also has the right ideas on Iran and record on Gitmo. And I personally feel your correct to assert that leaving Iraq prematurely would be beyond disastrous for Iraqi's and for America's standing in the region. Obama is way too eager to leave, and it does come across as shallow populism.

Still, bottom line Id have to go with Obama. I just trust his judgment. I think he'll see that something has to change, but that withdrawing now isn't necessarily the answer.

Anonymous said...

C.H.

I don't know if you are still following this thread. Maybe you've heard about this story. Fair or not, I think we will hear a lot more, especially since Hillary seems to be willing to do anything these days:

http://www.abcnews.go.com/
Blotter/story?id=4443788&page=1

Many prominent black ministers have been outspoken and have said controversial things--certainly Obama's falls into that category. Should Obama be held responsible?

C.H. said...

I'm not sure if he should be responsible. As you can see, I posted the video of the tirade delivered by his pastor, Jeremiah Wright. I do find it alarming though that he has been going to that church for many years.

Not to mention, this might help explain some of the extreme things Michelle Obama has recently said about America.

Average American said...

Obama talks a good talk, but that is all he can do. I hardly think "judgment" is a replacement for experience, and spending a few years overseas as a kid IS NOT FOREIGN POLICY EXPERIENCE!!! What in Hell are Americans thinking when they vote for this windbag??

All the racial bullshit coming out of that pastors mouth and Obama kept going and listening "cause he's retiring soon"---give me a friggin break!!

And to Americans who are so up in arms about the racial and sexist shit being thrown around, how would you like to have been John Edwards during the early primaries? Man talk about the media screwing him over BIG TIME. Poor guy couldn't get media coverage if his life depended on it. Now, that's who I pitied!

I'm glad you like McCain also, cause that's who will be the next President. And history will look back a few decades from now and call him one of America's best Presidents. You heard it here first!!