It's not that compromise is inherently wrong

" It's not that compromise is inherently wrong," he said to me.
" I just didn't find it satisfying. And the one thing I've discovered
as I get older is that you have to do what is satisfying to you. In
fact that's one of the advantages o f old age, I suppose, that You've
finally learn ed what matters to you. It's ha rd to know that at
twenty- six. And the problem is th at no body else can answer that
question for you. You can only figure it o ut on your own."
Twenty years later, I think back on that conversation and appreciate
my fri end's words mo re than I did at the time. For I am
getting to an age where I have a sense of what satisfies me, and
although I am perhaps more tolerant of compromise on the issues.
Obama in audacity of hope

True democracy is the result of a local awakening.

First, we should be skeptical of those who believe we can single-highhandedly liberate other
people from tyranny. I agree with George W. Bush when in his
second inaugural address he proclaimed a universal  desire to be
free. But the re a re few examples in history in which the freedom
men and women crave is delivered through outside intervention.
In almost every successful social  movement of the last century,
from Gandhi's campaign against British rule to the Solidarity
movement in Poland to the anti apartheid movement in South
Africa, democracy was the result of a local awakening.

Barack Obama in  Audacity of hope

Where is the hope OBAMA ?

 I have been  an ardent supporter of Barack Obama   of the 3 times  i have voted in US presidential elections  2 times  was to vote for him. Although  voting for him in Dallas Texas  was  more  for moral support  rather than  any  concrete use due to the electoral college system of American elections.

recently I was reading  the  excerpts of the  book Audacity of Hope by Obama .

many  things he wrote in that book are  similar to my own opinions  which may be a reflection of his  upbringing.
I reproduce a paragraph here.

"Still, it's not too early to draw some conclusions from our
actions in Iraq. For our difficulties there don't just arise as a result
of bad execution. They reflect a failure of conception. The
fact is, close to five years after 9/11 and fifteen years after the
breakup of the Soviet Union, the United Stares still lacks a coherent nationaI security policy. Instead of guiding principles, we have what appear to be a series of adhoc decisions, with dubious
results. Why invade Iraq and not North Korea or Burma? Why
intervene in Bosnia and nor Darfur? Are our goals in Iran regime
change,The dismantling of all Iranian nuclear capability, the prevention
of nuclear proliferation, or all three? Are we committed
to mobilize force wherever there's a despotic regime that's terrorizing
its people and if so, how long do we stay to ensure democracy
takes root? How do we treat countries like China that are liberalizing
economically but not politically Do we work through
the United nations on all issues or only· when the UN is  willing
to ratify decisions we've already made?"

Now  with Barak Obama  in his second term
where are we ?
 we still have similar adhocism
what are our goals in Iran ?
Why invade Libya but not Syria?
What is the legality of drone strikes.
why have we forgotten about Guantanamo?