You really have a lot of room to call someone - else biased. Forest--trees. nm

Why bother with the nm. We can all see you have nothing - to offer in this dialog. sm

Nice try at condescending deflection but the - fact remains...OP's

Incomprehensible irrevalent departures, detours - and personal slams

When you can't debate an issue, you - slam and run. Typical.

The discussion is about foreign policy. You have yet to - take a stab at that.

It is not a thread about foreign policy... - had the parting shot

Excuse me. I am the one who posted advancing our values. - sm

Don't let the door hit you on your - condescending back...

Excellent rebuttal. - K-O. nm

Here are my reasons. - Backwards Typist

1.  The values President Obama refers to that he believes foreign policy should advance are incorporated in the speech in several places:   Political reforms that support democratic transition, human rights, economic development, trade, integration with US and European markets, OPIC (private) investment and debt forgiveness, among others.  So no, he is not speaking about oil or picking their leaders.  You have him confused with Bush.  

We are NOT the saviors of the world.  How can we possibly go forward with debt forgiveness when our own country is on the verge of bankruptcy? To speak of human rights and economic development is one thing, but integration with US and European markets (more free trade; i.e., NAFTA?) is not going to help our country. As for oil and picking their leaders, that’s the impression I got from his speech.

2.  I am amazed that you have to ask about his remarks to President Assad.  He is not saying anything different than the Syrian people whose blood is being spilled in the streets on a daily basis.  I lived in Syria for almost two years in the early 1980s and I can tell you first hand that the repression of free speech, the press and the right to assemble is palpable.  The military presence in the markets and at numerous road checkpoints was visible and their activities were arbitrary and intrusive EVERY SINGLE DAY.   People get arrested for no reason, disappear for months and sometimes years at a time, are imprisoned without trial and prevented from having contact with their families.  The choice to either lead in the transition or to get out of the way is what the SYRIANS THEMSELVES are now demanding.  Obama is simply expressing his solidarity with those who are engaged in that struggle.  President Assad is openly firing on peaceful demonstrators…his OWN people.   It would be irresponsible for him NOT to call Assad out for the recent genocidal military and police operations unfolding there that so far have claimed more than 1000 lives in the past month or so.  They have even opened fire on FUNERALS, an intolerable abomination for Moslems to endure under a Ba’athist regime.  Sanctions and international isolation are completely justified.  Sorry, I see no smoking gun there, other than the ones being held by Assad’s henchmen.

I didn’t say anything good about Assad, but as stated above, we are not the saviors of the world. The people in their own country must change things for themselves. It’s tough to do, but it’s been done before WITHOUT the help of any country. Evidently, Obama does not know who to express solidarity without sounding like he wants to take over the countries he talks about. That’s the impression I got from his speech.

3.   Ummm, principles are not rules or demands.  This is a simple observation that the uprisings in Yemen and Bahrain are also focused on the same values set forth in the speech and DEMANDED by the populations where the uprisings are taking place.   Dictating rules is what YOU are determined to read into this passage.  Who made him the one who can tell other countries what HE wants?  Let’s just say that the people who voted him into office probably expected that in his role as president, he would be in charge of directing foreign policy and that he would express the US position on Middle Eastern affairs in this given circumstance.  Nothing sinister about it.  He is doing his job.  My question to you is what problem are you having with the idea that our president should voice strong support for those Arabs who are seeking DEMOCRACY?  I just don’t get it. 

Again, he sounds demanding.  My problem is he is doing his job for every other country BUT the one he is the head of and that doesn’t sit well with me. Certainly, he could word his speeches a little better that he doesn’t sound demanding and ‘bossy’. Sorry, but I am having a problem with this president lately.

4.  On the question of aid, I believe you overlooked those places where he spoke about the part the US is willing to play in an INTERNATIONAL effort to promote and support reform and democracy.  Could I ask you something?   Are you not understanding the connection between democratic reform (as opposed to, say, Islamic fundamentalist reform) in these Arab nations and our own national security?  I think I distinctly remember you and others voicing concerns over the Islamic radicals “hijacking” these movements just a few short months ago.  How do you suppose that could be discouraged or prevented?  Is it only blackmail when your most despised democratic leaders do this or were you equally as offended when these same initiatives were carried out under republican administrations in the past?  Again, NO, he is not trying to impose “our ways” on them.  The ARAB PEOPLE are staging revolutions left and right demanding democratic reform.  Again, I think you are channeling your inner Bush on this one.  Your comment about “they will eventually turn on us” is too prejudiced to address, other than to ask does that also apply to Ws democracy incubator in Iraq?  You are really presumptuous to even pretend to have insight or knowledge as to how Arabs will respond to democratic reform.  Keep in mind that for the most part, it is the youth of these nations that are driving these movements.  They deserve a shot at freedom every bit as much as Americans do.   

Throughout history, every country we have helped in one way or another has turned on us. Check history. His attitude gave me the impression that he WAS trying to impose our way on them.  Has his advisors in these revolutions checked the background of anyone that may take charge?  What makes you think they ones demanding these rights are good for the people in this country? How many times has our government helped an opposition party gain control of the country only to find out later that they were, in fact, the opposite of what they stated they wanted for that country and oppressed the people even more?  In fact, you know darn well that the democratic way is not workable for those who don’t believe a woman has a place in society, that a woman is property, and young girls do not need an education because they will be women some day. The laws they follow do not give equal rights and how will you change that? I may sound harsh but you know for a fact that even in this country, there are honor killings of wives, sisters, and daughters because the husband, father, or brother says they are taking on western ways. Old ways die hard.

IMO, your bias against Obama (which we see in abundance on a daily basis in your daily posts) is hindering your ability to comprehend plain English or to interpret these fairly basic concepts.  

You know, I was never biased against Obama in the beginning. In fact, I almost voted for him until I stopped and added up what he wanted to do and what he promised in his campaign. I knew he was just dreaming that he could accomplish all that he promised. Then I started researching his background and what I saw changed my mind. He was inexperienced, was a senator for how many months(?),  had questionable associations, wondered how a senator who didn’t have much experience or recognition could gather so much campaign money in so short a time, and my biggest concern was why did he spend so much money sealing all his records.  I know of no other presidential candidate who ever did that. I questioned what he had to hide. When he became president, I was hoping he would accomplish just a few things that he promised, showing me that he could at least keep some of his campaign promises, but when he tried to spend his way out of this economy, I knew he wasn’t up to the job. He just doesn’t understand supply and demand economics.  So, yes, I am now biased.  He needs to go, and if you don’t like my answers, then do yourself a favor and don’t read my posts going forward.  No use in getting upset.  I definitely do not think Obama is a good president and I will question his every move.  Isn’t that the democratic way?  

Thank you for the 'debate' and answering my questions although my opinion has not changed.

I sure agree with your last sentence about bias against President Obama - sm