Basis of His foreign policies? Posted on 01/26/2015 12:21:44 PM PST by DanMiller
It has been argued that Obama's cognitive dissonance is demonstrated by His dealings with Iran and His other disruptive efforts in the Middle East. Perhaps the contrary is more accurate.
Basis of His foreign policies?
An article at Front Page Magazine by Bruce Thorton is titled The Dangers of Obama's cognitive dissonance. It argues that Obama mistakenly believes that Iran and "we" want many of the same things and that He acts on that belief.
The heart of this mistake is the belief that whatever their professed beliefs, all peoples everywhere are just like us and want the same things we want. Since our highest goods are peace and prosperity, we think other nations’ privilege the same things. If peoples behave differently, it’s because they are warped by poverty or bad governments or religious superstitions, and just need to be shown that they can achieve those boons in rational, peaceful ways, especially by adopting liberal democracy and free-market economies. Once they achieve freedom and start to enjoy the higher living standards economic development brings, they will see the error of their traditional ways and abandon aggression and violence, and resolve conflicts with the diplomacy and negotiation we prefer. [Emphasis added.]
The Islamic Republic of Iran most likely does want peace and prosperity, but on its own terms.
Iran wants Islamic "peace" -- the peace of universal submission to (a Shiite?) Allah -- and at least sufficient prosperity to force its will on others who do not want "peace" of that sort. If Iran gets (or gets to keep) nuclear weapons, along with increasingly longer range missiles, it will be in an increasingly improved position to do that.
Obama may well have very similar goals for Iran. His demands that the P5+1 process continue despite Iran's persistent refusals to make significant concessions, even as it continues to enhance its nuclear war machine, and His disposition to give Iran whatever concessions it wants, suggest that His and Iran's objectives are similar. There is support for an alternative, that Obama is simply delusional. However, unless His closest, most trusted and therefore most important advisors are at least equally delusional, that alternative makes little sense. Although she appears to be a despicable person, Valerie Jarrett seems quite competent at what she does on His behalf. Others fall on their swords, fall into line and salute or leave.
Obama's "extraordinary disconnect" in foreign policy was recently highlighted on CBS' Face the Nation.
[youtube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fxsyVO23G38]
John Bolton said much the same.
[youtube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=43CR4C2jjOg]
Is it more likely that Obama merely fails to understand what's happening, or that He understands and likes it? His State of Union address was full of foreign policy nonsense, much of it about Iran. However, it seems to have worked quite well with the large segment of the American public which neither understands nor cares about foreign affairs (except amusing affairs of a salacious nature) and believes that He strives mightily to give them the "free stiff" they believe they want, without understanding the economic hardships it has brought and will bring to them. If members of the public who already worship Him (and that includes most of the "legitimate news" media) continue to do so, it may well make little if any difference to Him or to His closest advisors whether those who disagree with Him still like, or continue to like, Him.
After all, as we learned at the Democrat National Convention that nominated Obama for a second term, "we all belong to the Government," it's "one big happy family" and Obama is the head of "our family."
[youtube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OHbNCWSVOjc]
In the final analysis, it may make little difference whether Obama is incompetent and delusional or is competent, understands His plans for Iran and the rest of the world far better than the rest of us and has perverse conceptions of evil and good.
[youtube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JQtJVjVtVLM]
Both theories are worth considering because both can help us to understand what He does, why He does it and what He intends to accomplish. However, delusional actions and intentions are difficult for those who are not delusional to understand and therefore to challenge. Actions and intentions that are, instead, based on a rational thought process -- but one that views evil as good and good as evil -- are easier to understand and therefore to challenge.
As I have watched Obama and His accomplishments over the years, I have come to lean toward the notion that He is competent, evil, understands what He is trying to achieve and likes it.
Sorry, Obammy, but I don't want, and very few other women want to wear Burqas or headscarves. Not even Dior scarves. Nor would we be thrilled with genital mutilation. Nor staying in the home when the second wife is introduced.
Even Obammy's minions cannot be this blind, deaf, dumb, and stupid. Sooooo that leaves evil.
When you accept that Obama is a muslim, all things become clear.
When you accept that he has absolute antipathy for anything Christian, it all makes sense as well.
We are saying the same thing, I think.
We’re close.
I’m making the distinction that he’s only a supporter of Islam because his first and primary motivation is hating Christianity.
He wants what Iran wants, and it isn’t what America wants.
I think most people here on freerepublic knew that before he was sworn in - there was already enough “history” of the man for anyone to know if they cared enough to look and listen.
The media stokes this preference.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.