I do have some questions regarding some of the remarks he made.
- He said we should learn from history. If we are to look back at this last century at all of the different types of autocrats that have lived there are several themes that are common. They lie; you can't get into bed with them without being left with some unwanted surprise; they will never give up their seats of power willingly; and lastly their reign ends with much bloodshed having been spilt. My question is, why are you proposing that we repeat the same mistakes we have made in the past by believing them, getting in bed with them, and supporting their reign of terror?
- Why is the US responsible for the rest of the american nations financial woes? They are sovereign nations that, as you said, "has the right to follow its own path." These nations chose what laws they would enact and what financial risks they would take. The US did not force any country to choose what they would invest in and what laws they would enact.
- You stated that we (US) need to "deal with our responsibilities" regarding the flow of guns and bulk cash across our boarders. My question is how do you know that it is the US that is supplying South America with guns? Do they not allow gun sells in other countries besides the US? Also are you going to allow the boarder patrol to take action against the outlaws and aliens coming across the boarder? If our agents are being arrested for doing their job, then how do you propose we stop this supposed flow of guns?
- You state that "we have to stand up against any force that separates any of our people from that story of liberty -- whether it's crushing poverty or corrosive corruption; social exclusion or persistent racism or discrimination." What do you think we have been doing in Iraq? Were the people of Iraq not under crushing poverty or corrosive corruption with Saddam? How about discrimination? I am pretty sure the Kurds and Shiites would say they were at the very least discriminated against. Why is it okay to say that only certain people deserve that right but other do not? You might not have stated that exactly but it does imply that one is entitled to freedom while others are not.
Now do not get me wrong. Obama did say very nice things as always. Yet he did not take a true stance on any of the true pressing issues on hand (Chaves and his dealings with Iran and other anti-U.S. groups). We can be respectful to our enemies but still disagree with them completely. Reagan and Gorbachev became good friends, yet did not agree on a lot of issues.
Let us follow Reagan's example and say no to all fascist regimes!