ArtsAutosBooksBusinessEducationEntertainmentFamilyFashionFoodGamesGenderHealthHolidaysHomeHubPagesPersonal FinancePetsPoliticsReligionSportsTechnologyTravel


Updated on September 26, 2012

Respect and human dignity triumphed in Obama's speech.

President Barack Obama defended American values of free speech and freedom of the individual, after eulogizing the slain United States ambassador before a worldwide audience.

He described the selfless individuality of Chris Stevens and his affinity to work in North Africa and the Middle East and help the people there as a diplomat, working from Egypt to Syria and Saudi Arabia to Libya. His peace corp days too were spent there as an English teacher in Morocco; and he spoke Arabic.

Chris Stevens died in the assault of the Benghazi Consulate on 9/11, 2012, when he was supposed to open a U.S. cultural center in that city that he had helped to redeem from the dictator, Muammar Gadhafi, only a short while ago. His death was untimely and uncalled for.

In a nutshell, he and the other three Americans, who died with him, were exceptional human beings and heroes in the eyes of their fellow American citizens and the world.

Obama then turned to the world itself, and touched on the behavioral pattern of humans, and said that some values were not to be observed by one group of people or one nation only; they were there to elevate humanity, such as freedom itself and the right of the individual to use every opportunity to improve his or her environment.

His main target was to remind the nations assembled in the General Assembly of the United Nations that peace was what all of them should sought after, instead of wars and wanting to destroy each other. He even singled out Iran and reiterated his policy that it (Iran) must not be allowed to obtain nuclear weapons, for the sake of the state of Israel.

At one point, he was not speaking for America as its president, but as a citizen of the world himself, saying that violence and mayhem to each other were not necessary; and that the attack on the U.S. Consulate was one on the principles upon which the U.N. was founded.

Though, he could have used his platform to tout his own achievements, as it was an election year in the U.S., and he was seeking a second term; but he did not.

Instead, he dwelt on self respect and freedom of speech; even though, in the modern world, one could spread bad news, at the push of a button on a mere cellphone, to set an inferno across the world; as being witnessed by a movie about Muhammad, that was found offensive by Muslims, for U.S. embassies to be under siege almost everywhere.

Yet, violence was not the answer to world problems, and that nations, as well as individuals must eschew it to allow peace and freedom to prevail around the globe.

He even quoted Nelson Mandela and Gandhi, two stalwarts of liberty, freedom and emancipation in modern history, to drive home to his audience that, if humanity would survive, it would be through peaceful means and understanding between nations, and people of different political and religious backgrounds coming together for the common good. Nothing else could replace that, for the dignity and prosperity of all human beings.

His critics, as inevitable as it might be, would have some qualms with his speech; but others, who listened to him closely, would maintain that there was nothing remiss in what he told the world audience, that the U.S. stood for mutual respect and harmony; and as powerful as it was, it would always pursue peaceful coexistence with all nations.

It was a great speech, given in the spirit of love and true recognition that all men and women "are created equal"; and that the world was making its own bed now, and its future would depend on the material that would be used, either "peace" or "hate", because it (world) would be forced to lie in it somehow, in the long term.


    0 of 8192 characters used
    Post Comment

    • ib radmasters profile image

      ib radmasters 5 years ago from Southern California

      It is really sad that you really believe in what you wrote here.

      I disagree with it on a number of points.

      First, Obama took three tries before he got it right about the attack.

      1sr No terrorist involvement

      2nd Terrorist involvement but not planned

      3rd Terrorist and planned attack

      How messed up is the US intelligence that they cannot only get it wrong twice, but didn't get the intelligence necessary to prevent it?

      So these three tries indicate that the president was deceiving the country or he was incompetent in not knowing the truth about the attack.

      He used his platform to buy votes from the gays, and the minorities. He didn't do favors for them until this year, but he could have done these things in the first three years. Doing it this year links it to his reelection.

      He also used his platform to leak the mission on Osama Bin Laden while the mission was ongoing. This jeopardized the covert operatives that were on the ground. Then he used his platform to make public the Seal Team that was involved in the mission. The Seal Team didn't like that notoriety and exposure.