Authored by William Robert Barber
I do understand that differing opinions are natural; I concede the need for a variety of opinions. I am convinced that in order to achieve the ‘best efforts’ in defining of a problem-solution, differing opinions are indispensable to any prudent discovery. When the topic of discussion is political in nature, divergence of opinions will enable disagreements. Clearly, I comprehend the obviousness of inevitable disagreement; such to and fro are fundamental to the process of logical deduction.
Respective of my previous paragraph, understanding that I am a conservative by thought and action, I was shocked to my core when I heard and then read Obama’s speech at the UN. Emphatically, that speech, literally and in spirit, put me on Mars and Obama on Venus. The President of the United States actuates his behavior like a Harvard professor of political philosophy instead of the leader of the free world. He speaks with the confidence that all of us Americans reside in a protective impenetrable sphere wherein attack by a hostile power is impossible. The basis of Obama’s international policy seems captured in the world as he wishes it was, instead of the world that exists; Russia and China will eat his heart and Iran will settle for the scraps.
I have a hard time accepting the liberal-progressives’ belief that the UN is a viable foreign policy tool. Are Obama and cohorts so naïve, so blatantly innocent and childlike in their Liberal-Progressive belief system that they will actually depend on the UN to facilitate US foreign policy initiatives? Have they no empirical sensibilities?
Possibly, Obama merely believes that the separation between Russia, China, North Korea, and Iran is nothing more than a grandiose misunderstanding; maybe it is a simple matter of idiom or semantics, some cultural misinterpretation or something to do with George Bush’s legacy. Admittedly, I am mystified by the Obama administration’s intentions… I do ask myself if my conservative prospective is acting as an intellectual blocking mechanism. I cannot see the Obama foreign policy intent or incentive as such policies interface with the United Nations. Is my inability to see the Obama policy as projected by his administration because I am blinded by my own ideological beliefs?
It is a reasonable guideline of prudence to sophisticate the contextual of an argument when the final sum of the argument could effectuate an at-all-cost result. If Obama has his way, Israel is on its own. The United States will not go to its aid if Iran transcends its covert attack on Israel in favor of an overt attack on its territory. Such an attack will surely follow an Israeli military attempt to blow up Iran’s nuclear facilities; hence Israel will not attack. Iran will have the weapon of mass destruction and eventually, by means direct or indirect, Israel will suffer its effect.
Obama’s general political philosophy and political ideology will enable our enemies; America, the once stalwart defender of all international transactions, the shining light of a once mighty contra to Russian interest, will unilaterally cede its power; all of this will come to form because Obama’s Liberal-Progressives believe in the interest of moral righteousness over sensibility.
The UN is a cabal of misfits, a loose confederation of usually disharmonious, self-dealing affiliates, whose only interest – other than the persistent pleadings of contrived contrarian’s posing as nation-states – is the perpetuation of the nonsensical and farce. Obama should feel especially welcomed.