Those both stood out against the backdrop of dry political speeches. You have a leading statesman, sure, of a country with plenty of its own flaws, but calling out a system that is completely absurd, immoral, and against the course of history. Speaking partly from national interest, no doubt, but still calling something out, calling it like it is.
Leaders seem to get a lot of extra points in their legacy column when they're able to pull this off.
If the sitting President were to make such a speech today, I wonder what and where it would be.
In Washington DC, calling for the dismantling of the military industrial complex, an end to perpetual war, a pacifying of the increasingly violent police, and the general re-establishment of the individual rights enshrined in the Constitution.
President Obama made a major, iconically-staged speech in Cairo in 2009 regarding relations between Muslim-majority countries and the NATO (approximately) West:
> Probably in Syria, calling for reform of radical Islam.
What you say makes no sense.Of all the countries in middle-east,Syria is one of the least islamic and did a good job at protecting minorities like christians.
Your saudi folks on the other hand are no different that what ISIS is preaching.But your government loves saudi money.
The US loved Saudi oil, not Saudi money so much. The US never really needed money from Saudi Arabia. The sole reason the US took a distinct interest in propping up the monarchy was for oil price and supply stability.
With the US boom in shale / fracking oil (and Canada's coinciding oil boom), Saudi oil not only matters less by the day to the US, but Saudi Arabia is increasingly becoming a hostile oil competitor looking to fight the US domestics for market share. That conflict will get worse by the year going forward, likely eventually ending with the US reducing its guarantees of security for the monarchy and with the Saudis turning increasingly to China for protection.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berlin_Wall
Those both stood out against the backdrop of dry political speeches. You have a leading statesman, sure, of a country with plenty of its own flaws, but calling out a system that is completely absurd, immoral, and against the course of history. Speaking partly from national interest, no doubt, but still calling something out, calling it like it is.
Leaders seem to get a lot of extra points in their legacy column when they're able to pull this off.
If the sitting President were to make such a speech today, I wonder what and where it would be.