Even though I am sure that the idea is right, I’m not so sure that I will be able to sell it. But I’m not about to give up so easily.

Let me ask you this: What is the one thing that can take a dream, and make it real? The answer is: Money. That’s how this world works. If we can somehow find the investors to put just one project on the gound, then it’s possible to attract enough attention, and enough investment, to take that one project, and transform it into a movement for change. And if my hunch is right, a lot of the investment money could be Arab money.

What if we could get countries like Saudi Arabia to convert oil profits into green profits by investing to create jobs, jobs which are geared to clean up the environment, and which help to neutralize extremism by giving everyone on earth a place at the table, a stake in his or her future?

This may seem like a “fake illusion” as you say, but what is the alternative? We are reaching a point in our development as a species, a tipping point of sorts, in which things will either improve exponentially, or they will just fall apart. The problems we face like global warming, extreme poverty, and ideological extremism, are converging. This means that we either find a solution, like Selling a Vision of Hope, that fixes almost everything in one shot, or the problems will converge to become our mutual undoing.

There will be trials and tribulations along the way, but in the end, I remain hopeful that we will find a way to come together. The answer is within our reach. We just have to give expression to our better instincts.

Soufiene: What if the U.S. comes to the conclusion that it is in their “imperialistic interests” to enable disenfranchised people around the world to realize a Vision of Peace, Prosperity, and Freedom? In other words; we may still be imperialists, but if our motivations in that regard take us in a good direction, then isn’t it still a good direction?

I hope!! Why not? But it is no more than a fake illusion for the moment!

Some of you are skeptical about Obama’s ability to sell a Vision of Hope for the Middle East, especially in light of the history of U.S. foreign policy. Some of you advocate non-intervention. My guess is that non-intervention assumes a level of maturity and civility, on the part of other nations, which as yet is not there.

There are brutes out there; extremists who want to believe what they want to believe, and for whom the truth is just a side issue. The U.S. should help to counter these guys, even if the U.S. has not always lived up to its highest principles. The fact that we are not always perfect, does not mean that we should give up on trying to perfect the world.

Soufiene, you say that the U.S. in an imperialist country, and that we’re out to take advantage of Asia and Africa for their natural resources. You say that the U.S. inclination toward hegemony negates the idea of Selling a Vision of Hope. Fair enough. But let me ask you this, Soufiene: What if the U.S. comes to the conclusion that it is in their “imperialistic interests” to enable disenfranchised people around the world to realize a Vision of Peace, Prosperity, and Freedom? In other words; we may still be imperialists, but if our motivations in that regard take us in a good direction, then isn’t it still a good direction?

Jina, you seem to advocate non-intervention, and you use foreign policy blunders to buttress your position. But what about World War II? Would U.S. non-intervention have been a good thing for the world? Should nuts like Hitler be given free reign? Intervention, when properly conceived, is a good thing, Jina. Not every idea on earth is a good idea. And someone has to have to courage to call the shots, when evil is to be let loose upon the world. That doesn’t mean that America is free from guilt. It just means that there are times when America stands out as the best possible hope for mankind.

Amilkarepublic, you say that Hope is not enough. Maybe. But to my mind, hope may be all we have. And if we, you and I, are somehow able to give substance to that hope, then it is no longer an empty dream.

Jessica, you say that strategies and visions are not enough. That we need plans, and that some of our plans are not always popular. Well, you’re probably right. But we are running out of options. Perhaps one good option would be to come up with a good vision for the Middle East, and to be clear about it, and to come up with plans that are consistent with the vision, and not contradictory to it. And I agree with you that foreign aid is necessary, but the aid come in the form of investments which create good paying jobs, jobs which are geared to protection of the environment. We will get more bang for the buck that way, and avoid at least some of the corruption.

And Jina is absolutely right to suggest that the nature of aid should take into account local cultures and customs. If an African farming village wants to remain an African framing village, then invest in that way. Not every street on earth is Wall Street.

Well, what can I say, I’m proud of you guys. You are the future. At least you bother to think, and to care, about something other than yourselves. Therein lies the hope for mankind.

Tasnim, you saying that it’s just words to say that: “We’re not fighting a war against terror, we’re fighting a war to realize a vision of hope.” Well, so far you’re right, but if we can somehow find a way to give some substance to these words, then they won’t be just words anymore. How do we do that, Tasnim?

It is a pointless endeavor to get into a point-by-point debate about what he could/could not have done better.

I am not trying to get into a point-by-point debate about what Bush could have done better. That would be an exercise in futility. I’m questioning the comparison, based on foreign policy decisions, between Bush and Reagan.

What is important now is moving forward, and each candidate should address how they will answer/solve many of the questions and problems. That is the point of the original post, is it not?

The point of the original post was, I think, selling a vision of hope for the Middle East. I don’t see how that is possible with the continuation of the same mentality which has been behind US foreign policy for the past several decades, including the Reagan years.

We’re fighting a war to realize a Vision of Hope

Bla Bla Bla of hypocrite politicians. His “hope” is to strengthen more and more the USA hegemony on the rest of the world. And all the means would be vindicated.

Yes, what you say about the US and Rwanda is true. I personally believe that the US should have done more in that case….but one of the reasons Clinton has stated he didn’t is because many people rejected the US intervention in Bosnia right before the Rwandan genocide. Again, I reassert that if the US really practiced isolationism as you would like, then nothing would have gotten done in Rwanda anyway. Is that really a better option, to never act on anything in any other country? I think that is a niave view of foreign policy that is not realistic in our increasingly globalized world.

If you read the US Constitution or the history of its making, you would know that it was a HUGE priority for the founding fathers to make people of all religious groups eqaul. That is why many people came to America in the first place – because they were being persecuted because of their religion in their home countries(ie, Quakers, Protestants, ect).

Also, if the economic aid given is not used properly that is the fault of the host country – not the donor.

How very irresponsible. If you give money to dictators, I wonder what they gona do with it… I’ll let you use some common sense on this one.

Either way, you clearly think that the US should not give out any form of aid anywhere, which is perfectly fine. My point was that if the US did as you would like, there would be many many other people in the world who would diasgree with that decision. It’s a no-win situation.

It’s a no-win situation for US and the dictators and their friends.

I have read “Shake Hands with the Devil” – I never said America had troops in Rwanda. My statement was a HYPOTHETICAL one, with Rwanda as an example where the US was criticized for not doing enough. IF America really practiced isolationism, as you would seem to prefer, then that means not interfering in other countries EVER even when it’s necessary – like in the Rwandan genocide.

US is criticized for preventing others from acting by using their dictatorial powers in the UN and failing to admit that a genocide was taking place until it was too late. US kept saying “acts of genocide” not “genocide” to describe the situation, and of course when Clinton visited the country, he lied and said, “they didn’t know”. Kind of like how the Brits did it to Jews when Jews were being slaughtered by the Nazis.

I don’t follow your last comment, “It was whiteman creating these countries that leads to constitutions being changed as people figure thing out on their own.” Of course white men created the US Constitution, but I don’t know why that’s important (and what does it matter if they were white or not???) – men at the founding of every country create their constitutions.

Whiteman created the US constitution for their own kind. Whiteman’s pawns created the constitution ignoring the local culture and customs which results in presently many countries re-writing their constitution to match their values and diversity. The ones who the Colonialists favored were the ones who wrote the constitution because they were put into power. These constitutions and laws they created gave them power over the other ethnic/linguistic/religious groups. Which resulted in all the wars you see in Africa and elsewhere. This is what I meant.

This is a perfect example of the no-win situation my original post was trying describe: I think everyone would agree that less harmful drugs in the world are a good thing, but the US also wants Mexico to improve their human rights before giving $ to combat the drug trade. Who is at fault here? Either way, if money is not spent to curb the drug trade, more people die either due to overdose or gang fights or whatever.

When weapons and arms are sold to foreign governments, that is not the aid I was referring to. Arms deals are what happens in a capitalist society where countries wish to protect themselves. Take Egypt for example: this year $415 million was given by the US to Egypt in economic aid, which was to help the poorest of the poor, especially targeted at building schools and water filtration plants. The military “aid” part of the same package is used to buy weapons made in the US, which keeps people in the US employed. NOT ALL AID GIVEN BY THE US IS USED FOR MILITARY PURPOSES, in fact, billions of dollars every year are given by the US for economic reasons. You may not agree where this money is spent (ie, Israel or Egypt or whatever) and that’s your opinion. But the non-military economic aid is there by the billions, and it’s existence should not be denied. Also, if the economic aid given is not used properly that is the fault of the host country – not the donor. Either way, you clearly think that the US should not give out any form of aid anywhere, which is perfectly fine. My point was that if the US did as you would like, there would be many many other people in the world who would diasgree with that decision. It’s a no-win situation.

I have read “Shake Hands with the Devil” – I never said America had troops in Rwanda. My statement was a HYPOTHETICAL one, with Rwanda as an example where the US was criticized for not doing enough. IF America really practiced isolationism, as you would seem to prefer, then that means not interfering in other countries EVER even when it’s necessary – like in the Rwandan genocide.

I don’t follow your last comment, “It was whiteman creating these countries that leads to constitutions being changed as people figure thing out on their own.” Of course white men created the US Constitution, but I don’t know why that’s important (and what does it matter if they were white or not???) – men at the founding of every country create their constitutions.

Tasnim,

As I said, no US President – including Regan or Bush – is perfect. My “principled” comment is merely repeating what supporters of each President might say. I am not a supporter of GW Bush, and I didn’t vote for him either time. It is a pointless endeavor to get into a point-by-point debate about what he could/could not have done better. What is important now is moving forward, and each candidate should address how they will answer/solve many of the questions and problems. That is the point of the original post, is it not?