Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Obama's Ignorance of World Affairs on Full Display in India
American Thinker ^ | 11/08/10 | Michael Filozof

Posted on 11/08/2010 7:49:00 PM PST by freespirited

When George W. Bush was sworn into office, he was mocked by his political enemies as a parochial idiot who had no understanding of world affairs. That proved untrue. By contrast Barack Obama was touted as a multicultural "citizen of the world" whose childhood residence in Indonesia, adult trips to Pakistan and Kenya, and Harvard degree were supposed proof of his sophistication. Obama subsequently disproved this belief by making reference to "speaking Austrian" during a European speech and sending Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to Russia to "press the reset button," (the word "reset" in Russian was misspelled) a stunt so stupid that a high school girl at a Model UN conference probably wouldn't do it.

Now, in his quasi-imperial trip to India, Obama has made ridiculous P.C.-inspired statements that managed to offend both India and Pakistan and reveal an astounding ignorance of South Asian politics and history.

First, Obama told an Indian audience that he supported India's bid to gain a permanent seat (and veto) on the UN Security Council. Aside from the fact that this is unlikely to happen, the idea greatly offends Pakistan, a sworn enemy of India since both countries became independent in 1947. While Obama's support for an Indian seat on the Security Council was greeted with applause in India, it was immediately denounced by Pakistan. Pakistan is our "ally" in the war on terror, but it is very unstable, partially ungovernable, and likely harboring Osama bin Laden. Obama gratuitously offended it by supporting its #1 enemy, India. How can this possibly help our efforts in the Af-Pak theater of war?

Second, Obama contradicted centuries of Indian history when he told an Indian schoolgirl that Islam is a "religion of peace" and that only "extremists" corrupt it. According to The Hindu newspaper, Obama said Islam is "a religion that reaffirms peace, fairness, tolerance. I think all of us recognize that this great religion in the hands of a few extremists has been distorted by violence." This must be an astonishingly false statement to Indian ears and to anyone with even a cursory knowledge of Indian history.

India has had virtually non-stop conflict with Islam since it was first invaded by Muslims in the seventh century. Hindu India and Muslim Pakistan have been in a virtual state of war since 1947, when British India was partitioned along religious lines, resulting in nearly a million casualties. Today, both India and Pakistan are nuclear-armed powers. There have been at least three shooting wars since 1947 and constant low-grade war over Kashmir. The attack on the Indian parliament by Muslim terrorists in 2001 and the Mumbai Massacre, perpetrated by Pakistani Muslims in 2008, are not the result of "extremists" who "distort" Islam but merely the latest incidents in centuries of war and conquest India has suffered at the hands of the "religion of peace."

It's clear that the Obama foreign policy isn't based on sophistication or even a basic knowledge of world affairs. It's based purely on fatuous P.C. sentiments that meet with approval in faculty lounges, but are downright dangerous to American security in the real world.


TOPICS: News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: india; obama; obamaindiatrip; pakistan
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-47 next last
To: TigersEye

I don’t think any sane person in India really cared about Obama’s PC speeches. Nobody expected him to say anything more than he said. His visit was just a process of going through the motions-nothing new happened. So I can’t understand why everyone out here seems so worked up.


21 posted on 11/08/2010 8:15:23 PM PST by sukhoi-30mki
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: sukhoi-30mki

So he insulted their intelligence and dignity by blathering about his support for something they don’t want a part of?


22 posted on 11/08/2010 8:16:18 PM PST by TigersEye (Who crashed the markets on 9/28/08 and why?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: TigersEye

The UNSC permanent membership is an emotive issue in the G-4 countries and Nigeria for example. Using it is not such a bad idea-governments like to parrot their ‘success’ in pushing their case forward citing support from countries as diverse as Nauru to the US.

About the specifics, anyone who is familiar with the whole thing will tell you that nothing meaningful is expected to happen anytime soon.


23 posted on 11/08/2010 8:19:36 PM PST by sukhoi-30mki
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: sukhoi-30mki
His visit was just a process of going through the motions-nothing new happened.

You are saying that this visit meant nothing to India and we paid $200 mil a day for a play date? India must have spent quite a few rupees itself to accommodate The Won.

24 posted on 11/08/2010 8:19:41 PM PST by TigersEye (Who crashed the markets on 9/28/08 and why?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: sukhoi-30mki

I’m afraid I don’t understand a thing you said in that post. (#23) You sure didn’t answer my question.


25 posted on 11/08/2010 8:21:03 PM PST by TigersEye (Who crashed the markets on 9/28/08 and why?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: TigersEye

Deals which were in negotiation for a few years were signed, he and his wife visited a few places, danced around and attended two banquets.

Pretty much the routine of most bilateral visits.


26 posted on 11/08/2010 8:21:14 PM PST by sukhoi-30mki
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: TigersEye

Obama said what the Indian government wanted to hear. Or rather hoped to hear.

They know that the US is highly unlikely to push for genuine UNSC reform anytime soon. And even if it wanted, the Chinese would stand in the way.

Was that insulting people’s dignity and intelligence?? well yes. But then that’s what politicians do all the time.


27 posted on 11/08/2010 8:23:25 PM PST by sukhoi-30mki
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: sukhoi-30mki
Pretty much the routine of most bilateral visits.

Aside from the astronomical cost and the insults to all parties. Something I don't recall Clinton doing.

28 posted on 11/08/2010 8:24:24 PM PST by TigersEye (Who crashed the markets on 9/28/08 and why?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: sukhoi-30mki
They have not been OK with expansion. The Chinese have opposed a permanent seat for Japan. The US has not supported a permanent seat for Germany. The UN Security Council is anachronistic. It is based on the world as it existed in 1945. The PRC took the seat occupied by the nationalists. The G4 would accept permanent status even without a veto.

Japan and Germany are the 2nd and 3rd largest contributors to the UN. India and Brazil deserve a permanent seat. And there is no permanent representation from Africa. The current permanent five are unwilling to include any other countries as equals, which includes veto authority.

29 posted on 11/08/2010 8:32:39 PM PST by kabar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: freespirited

What on earth is an American President doing visiting a foreign state and lecturing school children on Islam? How does that advamce US interests?


30 posted on 11/08/2010 8:36:59 PM PST by bereanway (I'd rather have 40 Marco Rubios than 60 Arlen Specters)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: freespirited

“a million casualties”

PC talk for murders by Hindi and Muslims of each other

As Churchill warned.


31 posted on 11/08/2010 8:37:00 PM PST by DontTreadOnMe2009 (So stop treading on me already!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: freespirited

I’m trying to decide what’s bigger, his stupidity or his ignorance.


32 posted on 11/08/2010 8:40:19 PM PST by aquila48
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TigersEye
Do you think Indian Hindus, Buddhists, Jains and Sikhs bought that BS about jihad just being a spiritual precept of Islam distorted by a few extremists?

No matter how hard the attempt to sanitize/cloak those responsible for terrorism worldwide, the world is now quite familiar with the terms jihad, fatwa, infidel, apostacy, kafir/kuffir, and takayya and the name of its ideology cause.

33 posted on 11/08/2010 8:46:02 PM PST by MamaDearest
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: kabar

Veto power is the only differentiator here or it becomes a game of numbers. The US and most of the other P-5 members have at various times expressed guarded support for expansion involving the G-4 states. The only noticeable exception was China, which opposes Japan and is ambiguous on India.


34 posted on 11/08/2010 8:46:31 PM PST by sukhoi-30mki
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: freespirited
It's based purely on fatuous P.C. sentiments

Alas, our author, Mr. Filozof, is really not much better on that score.

Obama is not mouthing "PC sentiments." This sort of thing is his narcissism at work.

35 posted on 11/08/2010 8:52:01 PM PST by r9etb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: freespirited
According to The Hindu newspaper, Obama said Islam is "a religion that reaffirms peace, fairness, tolerance. I think all of us recognize that this great religion in the hands of a few extremists has been distorted by violence." This must be an astonishingly false statement to Indian ears and to anyone with even a cursory knowledge of Indian history.

And it's not just Obama's ignorance. I always thought that visits to foreign nations, and statements a US president might make in foreign nations, were all planned and reviewed by experts in the cultures and histories of the nation being visited - so as to avoid such displays of ignorance.

But apparently not. All his nonsensical remarks about Islam seems to be nothing more than Ivy League political correctness and multicultural nonsense taken as if it were true.

36 posted on 11/08/2010 8:52:48 PM PST by Will88
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sukhoi-30mki
China has changed on India, but the US still does not support Germany. In a more sane world, the EU would have one representative. Or better yet, let's get rid of the UN and start over.

China's annual contribution [2010] to the UN for regular operations is $67,434,617. Japan pays $264,959,467. Germany pays $169,548,684. Spain pays $67,180,865. Canada pays $67,815,245. The Russian Federation pays $33,875,903. What's wrong with this picture?

37 posted on 11/08/2010 9:02:47 PM PST by kabar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: sukhoi-30mki

The U.S. has been the largest financial supporter of the U.N. since the organization’s founding in 1945. The U.S. is currently assessed 22 percent of the U.N. regular budget and more than 27 percent of the U.N. peacekeeping budget. In dollar terms, the Administration’s budget for FY 2011 requested $516.3 million for the U.N. regular budget and more than $2.182 billion for the peacekeeping budget.

However, the U.S. also provides assessed financial contributions to other U.N. organizations and voluntary contributions to many more U.N. organizations. According to OMB, total U.S. contributions to the U.N. system were more than $6.347 billion in FY 2009. This is more than $1 billion more than total contributions as compiled by OMB for FY 2005, and it is indicative of the rising budgetary trends in the U.N. and the consequential demand on U.S. financial support.


38 posted on 11/08/2010 9:06:25 PM PST by kabar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: sukhoi-30mki
The U.S. has been the largest financial supporter of the U.N. since the organization’s founding in 1945. The U.S. is currently assessed 22 percent of the U.N. regular budget and more than 27 percent of the U.N. peacekeeping budget. In dollar terms, the Administration’s budget for FY 2011 requested $516.3 million for the U.N. regular budget and more than $2.182 billion for the peacekeeping budget.

However, the U.S. also provides assessed financial contributions to other U.N. organizations and voluntary contributions to many more U.N. organizations. According to OMB, total U.S. contributions to the U.N. system were more than $6.347 billion in FY 2009. This is more than $1 billion more than total contributions as compiled by OMB for FY 2005, and it is indicative of the rising budgetary trends in the U.N. and the consequential demand on U.S. financial support.

39 posted on 11/08/2010 9:07:08 PM PST by kabar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: aquila48
His stupidity and ignorance are about equal, but larger than his ears, which are larger than his brain.

vaudine

40 posted on 11/08/2010 9:08:41 PM PST by vaudine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-47 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson