heef ([info]heef) wrote,
@ 2009-01-20 17:17:00
Previous Entry  Add to memories!  Tell a Friend  Next Entry
Sorry, no.
America is *not* a friend of each nation. We can be, under different and varying circumstances, but we surely *are* not.

(24 comments) - (Post a new comment)


[info]wolfychan
2009-01-20 05:21 pm UTC (link)
I think it means that we're friendly to, like, the people of Iran and North Korea and we'd love to help them out if only they could be a little less enemies with us... or something?

Edited at 2009-01-20 05:22 pm UTC

(Reply to this) (Thread)

[info]heef
2009-01-20 05:22 pm UTC (link)
What it really means is "I'm willing to say something hyperidealistic." Now, we can only hope that he doesn't actually believe it in the terms in which he stated it.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]wolfychan
2009-01-20 05:27 pm UTC (link)
I think it's sort of a deliberate contrast to the "Axis of Evil"--the new America will love everyone if only they let us!

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]heef
2009-01-20 05:29 pm UTC (link)
One crazy extreme for another... sigh.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]kcobweb
2009-01-20 05:29 pm UTC (link)
We're Americans - we only respond to extremes!!

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]heef
2009-01-20 05:33 pm UTC (link)
I could not have encapsulated the problem with both parties better.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

[info]sir_graeme
2009-01-20 05:30 pm UTC (link)
Hey, he's got plenty of time to write in the fine print...

(Reply to this)


[info]cybersattva
2009-01-20 05:31 pm UTC (link)
Well, he also threw in that bit about "if you unclench your fist"

(Reply to this) (Thread)

[info]heef
2009-01-20 05:33 pm UTC (link)
True... but he could have done that with a more realistic, less transparently false lead-in.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

[info]nadyezhda
2009-01-20 05:56 pm UTC (link)
I don't want to be friends with people who wilfully murder tens of thousands of their citizens. No thanks.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]cybersattva
2009-01-20 05:57 pm UTC (link)
So you'd rather close off all communication with them no matter what reforms they might be willing to make? Yes, that's worked so well so far.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]heef
2009-01-20 06:07 pm UTC (link)
There's a difference between cutting off communication, and treating them as oppressors - see, for instance, how Bush dealt with North Korea. You're putting forth a false dichotomy here.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]cybersattva
2009-01-20 06:23 pm UTC (link)
Also foolish to offer unqualified friendship to every nation. He's far too nuanced a person (for a change!) for me to believe that was his intent, but if it was (and having read the text, I agree it was unclear at best in a *very carefully crafted* speech), I absolutely agree with your original point.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

[info]nadyezhda
2009-01-20 06:07 pm UTC (link)
nope, didn't say that. But friends? Someone once said something about not forgetting that countries are allies, not friends. I'll have to poke the Muzh for the quotation because it's a good one.

There are nations being led by people like Mugabe, who is letting thousands die from cholera. There's Kim Jong Il, of course, and Ahmedinejad, who both torture innocents. Not everyone turns around like Gaddafi and I'm not sure I want to be HIS friend, either.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]cybersattva
2009-01-20 06:19 pm UTC (link)
Sure, of course. And seeing the exact quote from [info]samtheeagle below, I concede your and heef's point. That said, I really, really liked the bulk of the speech. It's so nice to have a president that's inspiring again. I, for one, am so very tired of "Joe six-pack" leading our nation.

Also, I don't think Obama really believes we are the friend of every nation, no matter how icky, so I think [info]samtheeagle's pointing out the "... seeks a future of peace and dignity" qualifier is the logical intent, but yes it could have been phrased better.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

[info]cybersattva
2009-01-20 06:01 pm UTC (link)
And also in the same speech:

"...for those who seek to advance their aims by inducing terror and slaughtering innocents, we say to you now that our spirit is stronger and cannot be broken; you cannot outlast us, and we will defeat you."

Meh. It's not that different than what Bush was saying to N. Korea, when painted with a broad brush: "Make changes and join the international community." The devil, as always, is in the details. We'll see what happens.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

[info]nadyezhda
2009-01-20 05:57 pm UTC (link)
But I did like the line about "know that your people will judge you on what you build, not on what you destroy."

(Reply to this) (Parent)

[info]g_me
2009-01-20 05:49 pm UTC (link)
I get what you're saying here. But part of the theater of the whole inauguration thing just wouldn't work if he stood there and gave an amazingly pragmatic, detailed speech and made sure every nuance of what he might *really* mean was spelled out. First of all, it would be too long. Second, part of the role of the president on this day is to rally, in some way, the American people. You can't really do that with nuance to a crowd of millions.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

[info]heef
2009-01-20 05:52 pm UTC (link)
Okay, but he could have changed just a few words in that sentence, achieved the same effect, and not come across as a naif.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

[info]samtheeagle
2009-01-20 06:04 pm UTC (link)
America is *not* a friend of each nation.

That's not what he said. Grammar matters: what he said was:

"...to all other peoples and governments who are watching today, from the grandest capitals to the small village where my father was born: know that America is a friend of each nation and every man, woman, and child who seeks a future of peace and dignity, and that we are ready to lead once more."

America is a friend to every nation that "seeks a future of peace and dignity." Nothing wrong with that.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

[info]heef
2009-01-20 06:06 pm UTC (link)
That's a severe stretch, given that the future of peace and dignity clause fairly clearly referred to the "every man, woman, and child" part. His inflection of the phrase clearly demarcated it, not that it's anything short of clear from the sentence-on-paper.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]samtheeagle
2009-01-20 06:45 pm UTC (link)
No, it's not a stretch. That was the meaning. The security apparatus would never permit him to say otherwise. Trust me here.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]heef
2009-01-20 06:48 pm UTC (link)
It's not a question of trust. It's a matter of what my eyes saw, and my ears heard, vs. what you're telling me I should have seen and heard. It was a mistake. (Yes, he is actually capable of making those.)

(Reply to this) (Parent)

[info]scottahill
2009-01-20 06:14 pm UTC (link)
We're the sort of friend who will smack you upside the head if you're being a jerk (or steal your french fries when you're not looking-- hey, he didn't say we were a *good* friend.)

(Reply to this)

(24 comments) - (Post a new comment)

Create an Account
Forgot your login or password?
Login w/ OpenID
English • Español • Deutsch • Русский…