There he goes again

[ArlJim78]

Well the president is on foreign soil again, so we all know what that means.
Time to apologize and blame the US and bash our prior policies (http://voices.washingtonpost.com/44/2009/04/16/obama_publishes_op-ed_in_advan.html?wprss=44). Of course this is wrapped around a gauzy campaign style address with empty rhetoric like;

"Advancing prosperity, security and liberty for the people of the Americas depends upon 21st century partnerships, freed from the posturing of the past." (that's the US of course guilty of the posturing)

also;
As we approach the Summit of the Americas, our hemisphere is faced with a clear choice. We can overcome our shared challenges with a sense of common purpose, or we can stay mired in the old debates of the past. For the sake of all our people, we must choose the future.

Too often, the United States has not pursued and sustained engagement with our neighbors. We have been too easily distracted by other priorities, and have failed to see that our own progress is tied directly to progress throughout the Americas. My Administration is committed to the promise of a new day. We will renew and sustain a broader partnership between the United States and the hemisphere on behalf of our common prosperity and our common security.


These foreign campaign speeches/videos/articles are becoming all too predictable now, the US was a disgrace and embarrassment to the world, and for that we are deeply sorry. We were the stumbling block to progress around the world, Europe, Asia, central and South America. However now that we have "my administration" in charge, a new day has dawned and we can now stand together and overcome challenges.

We have the only world leader who routinely bashes his own country, it's citizens, and his predecessors when he visits other countries. We have the only world leader who bows to despot rulers of other nations and apologizes for his countries prior policies.

[Bubba X]

Well the president is on foreign soil again, so we all know what that means.
Time to apologize and blame the US and bash our prior policies (http://voices.washingtonpost.com/44/2009/04/16/obama_publishes_op-ed_in_advan.html?wprss=44). Of course this is wrapped around a gauzy campaign style address with empty rhetoric like;

"Advancing prosperity, security and liberty for the people of the Americas depends upon 21st century partnerships, freed from the posturing of the past." (that's the US of course guilty of the posturing)

also;
As we approach the Summit of the Americas, our hemisphere is faced with a clear choice. We can overcome our shared challenges with a sense of common purpose, or we can stay mired in the old debates of the past. For the sake of all our people, we must choose the future.

Too often, the United States has not pursued and sustained engagement with our neighbors. We have been too easily distracted by other priorities, and have failed to see that our own progress is tied directly to progress throughout the Americas. My Administration is committed to the promise of a new day. We will renew and sustain a broader partnership between the United States and the hemisphere on behalf of our common prosperity and our common security.


These foreign campaign speeches/videos/articles are becoming all too predictable now, the US was a disgrace and embarrassment to the world, and for that we are deeply sorry. We were the stumbling block to progress around the world, Europe, Asia, central and South America. However now that we have "my administration" in charge, a new day has dawned and we can now stand together and overcome challenges.

We have the only world leader who routinely bashes his own country, it's citizens, and his predecessors when he visits other countries. We have the only world leader who bows to despot rulers of other nations and apologizes for his countries prior policies.

You take liberties.

Without your use of the words " "disgrace" and "embarrassment" which, of course, are not used by Admin officials, it's pretty clear that all he is doing is striking a conciliatory tone.

I admit it is different than more conservative populist language such as "Axis of Evil" and may not ring your bell but, then again, how did that work out for us?

[miraja2]

We have the only world leader who routinely bashes his own country, it's citizens, and his predecessors when he visits other countries.
I don't know if he is the only one Jim, but it sure would be refreshing if there were more leaders like him around the world.
The United States has certainly engaged in a very regrettable foreign policy agenda over the last sixty years that has rightfully enraged thousands of people all around the world. There is a lot for which to apologize.
The U.S. certainly isn't the only country to engage in such actions, and it would be refreshing if more leaders stepped forward like he has done. The whole "my-country-right-or-wrong" approach is moronic when embraced by average citizens, and it is perhaps even more ridiculous when national leaders take that stance.

[Snag]

If we are so wrong and have wronged so many, why do those same countries and people extend their hand and take our money and aid so fast?

[Lefty]

Obama just can't say enough against this country. Guess he's just playing to his base, judging from the libs here.

[ArlJim78]

I don't know if he is the only one Jim, but it sure would be refreshing if there were more leaders like him around the world.
The United States has certainly engaged in a very regrettable foreign policy agenda over the last sixty years that has rightfully enraged thousands of people all around the world. There is a lot for which to apologize.
The U.S. certainly isn't the only country to engage in such actions, and it would be refreshing if more leaders stepped forward like he has done. The whole "my-country-right-or-wrong" approach is moronic when embraced by average citizens, and it is perhaps even more ridiculous when national leaders take that stance.
we have enraged thousands worldwide over 60 years? where do you come up with that figure? it doesn't sound like a lot.

we have made mistakes but there is nobody we should be apologizing to. foreign policy isn't like mending relations with your mother or spouse. people respect strength, not rock stars seeking the personal affirmation of the world.

"refreshing" approaches have to be based on something tangible, countries act in their best interest period. well that is up until now. I don't see what Obama is doing that is in our best interest. looking weak, disarming, apologizing, abandoning allies and emboldening despots. i don't get it. Russia and China merely have to sit back and let him do their work for them.

[goforgin]

Russia and China merely have to sit back and let him do their work for them.
Just once I would like to hear the U.S. say in the United Nations forum that "we're taking a back seat on this one. We'll let you fella's handle this one."

[cj's dad]

I don't know if he is the only one Jim, but it sure would be refreshing if there were more leaders like him around the world.
The United States has certainly engaged in a very regrettable foreign policy agenda over the last sixty years that has rightfully enraged thousands of people all around the world. There is a lot for which to apologize.
The U.S. certainly isn't the only country to engage in such actions, and it would be refreshing if more leaders stepped forward like he has done. The whole "my-country-right-or-wrong" approach is moronic when embraced by average citizens, and it is perhaps even more ridiculous when national leaders take that stance.

How old are you ?? 15 ?? You must be living in a time warp. The world hates us and all that we stand for and will kill us if given the chance.The difference is that up until now they cannot- a few more years of Barack Hussein Obama and they may have the means to do so.

Remember 9/11 !!

[ArlJim78]

well what timing, I just came upon a WSJ online piece (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124000916299330597.html#mod=rss_opinion_main)tha t makes the very point that I was trying to make, although this guy does it much better.

Obama's Popularity Doesn't Mean Much Abroad

"This litany will lengthen in months to come, but it's not too early to render a preliminary judgment on Team Obama's foreign policy. The basic lesson, alas, is that nice guys don't do better than meanies like Mr. Bush.

That is not how politics among nations works. The last president who excited so much enthusiasm was John F. Kennedy. Jackie did wow the French with her bow to Continental tastes, but Jack found an implacable rival in President Charles de Gaulle. Reaching out to Nikita Khrushchev in his first year, JFK went to the brink of nuclear war in his second with the Cuban missile crisis.

The point here is an old one, variously ascribed to Talleyrand, Palmerston or De Gaulle, about nations having everlasting interests rather than eternal friends or enemies. In today's language: interest beats affection any time. Mrs. Merkel surely knows how enthralled her country is with Mr. Obama. But that's not enough to place German soldiers in harm's way in Afghanistan, or to run up the national debt in a country that is traumatized by inflation."

[JustRalph]

I don't know if he is the only one Jim, but it sure would be refreshing if there were more leaders like him around the world.
The United States has certainly engaged in a very regrettable foreign policy agenda over the last sixty years that has rightfully enraged thousands of people all around the world. There is a lot for which to apologize.
The U.S. certainly isn't the only country to engage in such actions, and it would be refreshing if more leaders stepped forward like he has done. The whole "my-country-right-or-wrong" approach is moronic when embraced by average citizens, and it is perhaps even more ridiculous when national leaders take that stance.

You are joking right? You mean regrettable stuff like the Marshall plan? How about the Berlin Airlift (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berlin_Blockade) How about propping Poland up until Reagan could help Walesa take control of and free the country? How about those 40,000 headstones in France? You know the ones with American Soldiers (https://hazelhurst.pbwiki.com/f/41%20Headstone%20for%20an%20unknown%20soldier.jpg) underneath them?

Get real............

[miraja2]

You are joking right? You mean regrettable stuff like the Marshall plan? How about the Berlin Airlift (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berlin_Blockade) How about propping Poland up until Reagan could help Walesa take control of and free the country? How about those 40,000 headstones in France? You know the ones with American Soldiers (https://hazelhurst.pbwiki.com/f/41%20Headstone%20for%20an%20unknown%20soldier.jpg) underneath them?

Get real............
You think that thousands of American soldiers died in France within the last sixty years? Umm.....no.
How much can you tell me about Guatemala in '53 & '54, or Cambodia in '69 & '70, or Nicaragua in the 80s? These atrocities are - of course - just the tip of the iceberg.

[The Judge]

he could have said "I'm glad to be here, remember Granada" and set down. Would that have made you happpy? I'm sure that would have went over big time.

[miraja2]

In my opinion, the argument that ArlJim puts forward is that the popularity of an American president around the world is virtually meaningless. All that an American president should be doing is trying to do whatever it takes to advance American interests.

First of all, I disagree that an American president should just be trying to advance an American agenda, and I don't view global politics as a strict zero-sum game as Jim (along with most other people) seems to do. I am aware, however, that taking this position makes me a ultra-left fanatic, so let's say for the sake of argument that Jim is right and that the job of a nation's leader should be to advance that nation's interest at any and all cost.
Aren't nations around the world that have a democratically elected government going to be more likely to go along with an initiative proposed by an American president with high approval ratings in their own country? Bush was so wildly unpopular around the world, that many democratically elected leaders probably believed that if they were seen in their own country as being allied with Bush, they would suffer a negative effect on their own electoral prospects. If Obama (or any president with high foreign approval ratings) asks a leader of a democratically elected country to go along on some high profile initiative, isn't that leader more likely to do it if for no other reason than it may help his or her own domestic political careers?
Now, does that mean that a President that is popular in, say, Portugul and Canada is going to be able to get Canadian and Portuguese leaders to back every move the administration proposes in NATO or the UN? Of course not. Does it make it more likely that it will happen more often? I think it does.

[The Judge]

His ratings were so low Republicans running for re-election wouldn't let him campaign with them. We are talking about a setting President of the United States.

miraga2 careful with the coherent post around here you are going to be labled a crack-pot by the right.

[Boris]

While I would not say the popularity of the President is meaningless, or virtually meaningless, it is not paramount. It's a one-eyed jack in a poker game with no wild cards. The lowest face card in the deck that will get you in to more pots than you should play. You expect it to have value and it is routinely beaten.

We elected a rookie that is going to lose a few showdowns before he figures out being popular in a den of liars is dangerous.

[ArlJim78]

First of all, I disagree that an American president should just be trying to advance an American agenda, and I don't view global politics as a strict zero-sum game as Jim (along with most other people) seems to do. I am aware, however, that taking this position makes me a ultra-left fanatic, so let's say for the sake of argument that Jim is right and that the job of a nation's leader should be to advance that nation's interest at any and all cost.
i didn't make either of these claims. i said countries will act in their best interest. that doesn't mean its merely an American agenda, our interests are always shared by at least some other nations. it would be ridiculous to say a country should advance their interests at any and all cost which is why I didn't say it and few have ever tried it.
Aren't nations around the world that have a democratically elected government going to be more likely to go along with an initiative proposed by an American president with high approval ratings in their own country?
again no, like i said before there are much higher considerations than if our president is popular, namely if it is deemed to be in the best interest of the country.
If Obama (or any president with high foreign approval ratings) asks a leader of a democratically elected country to go along on some high profile initiative, isn't that leader more likely to do it if for no other reason than it may help his or her own domestic political careers?
i guess if he's a spineless leader he or she might imagine that his political career would be enhanced by doing what is popular with his own people. however we still get back to the same issue, the people of this country are only going to view the high profile initiative positively if they think it's in the best interest of their country. why would they be any different than people in Obama's own country? Obama has fairly high approval ratings in this country, but people like myself support almost NONE of his policies because we feel they are harmful to THIS country. the same calculation will be made elsewhere.

Now, does that mean that a President that is popular in, say, Portugul and Canada is going to be able to get Canadian and Portuguese leaders to back every move the administration proposes in NATO or the UN? Of course not. Does it make it more likely that it will happen more often? I think it does.
and if it did happen more often would why would it be a good thing? a person with high popularity is not immune from proposing some dreadful ideas.
poll numbers can go up and down quite rapidly. is it a good thing to base actions on the momentary snapshot of a particular leaders popularity, or a sober assessment of the long term cost/benefits of the action?

trying to get a coalition of nations to act in a certain way is not like selecting the winner of American Idol, with everyone texting in their votes for who is the current buzz performer. let me ask you, when you think about global issues and what the right course might be for the US and others to take, how important is it for you to know the popularity poll numbers for the particular leaders involved? are they more important than the details of the proposal itself? of course not.

being a leader of a nation doesn't mean you merely watch the polls and seek to do what is the most popular.

[Tom]

Popularity is for actors and guitar players.
RESPECT is what counts.
One can be hated by people and yet respected by them at the same time.

[miraja2]

Jim,
I think you are giving voters and leaders in other countries way too much credit. They are just as stupid and corrupt - or as you said, "spineless" - as they are here in Illinois. If an unpopular US president proposed something for NATO or the UN to do, I am not so sure that all of the citizens of the countries in those organizations would get together and weigh all of the positives and negatives involved for themselves or anybody else. Some people probably would do that, but a lot of them probably would just decide it was a bad idea....because it was someone they didn't like's idea. They would do the opposite if it was someone they did like. That makes it hard for a national leader to support an unpopular measure, because politicians in most democratic countries typically struggle to take any actions that negativley effect their political prospects.
It is Republicans that always complain that people simply follow Obama like sheep and agree with whatever he says just because they like him. Do you really believe that the majority of Americans are too stupid to figure out what is in their best interest, but all of the people in these other countries are somehow immune to personal popularity and will simply use unemotional logic to decide what is the right or wrong thing for their country to do?

[dav4463]

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20090418/D97KT7MG0.html

This is scary. Obama is not showing any respect to Bush or Reagan by being buddies with these thugs.

[The Judge]

were the thugs that the people of their countries voted into office. In their countries they are seen as hero's for standing-up to the U.S. You see the people in those countries see the U.S as the thugish.

He could have shook hands and not shook hands with any number of people but he though he would respect the people of those countries by shanking hands with the officials that were lawfully elected. Makes sense to me.

[JustRalph]

By acting in the manner he did this last week, Obama gives credence and affirmation to a ruthless Dictator. It is unforgivable

Remember Chavez is a man who keeps forcing people into jail just because they oppose him.......he is corrupt as hell. He accepts direct cash from criminals etc............he is making the country into a Socialist stronghold.

He also seized American owned Oil Companies and nationalized them.

Are you starting to see a pattern here? I don't think Obama wants our country to be like Chavez and Venezuela..........but you don't legitimize a man like Chavez unless you approve of something he is doing?

For info Please read this LA Times article and more
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-naim10nov10,0,1470504.story

NY Times
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/02/world/americas/02venezuela.html

http://www.laht.com/article.asp?ArticleId=331630&CategoryId=13303

http://www.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idUSTRE49O2FL20081025

[JustRalph]

http://cache.daylife.com/imageserve/0e946hfa7A2F9/610x.jpg

Obama autographing his book for his new fan club

[The Judge]

to see so many Americans and American news outlets are worried about the crime rate in Caracus Venezuela is on the minds of so many in the media of the United States.

Here are two suggestions to stop cocaine being imported into the United States.
1. Do Not use cocaine
2. legalize cocaine

Of course this would have the a side consequence of needing less jails and prisons therefore less DEA agents, less prison gaurds, less police, fewer prosecutors, fewer defense attorneys, fewer bails bondsmen, fewer judges.


For the life of me I can't understand why you would care if an American company is nationalized in some other country. They know the risk going in, a country might come to their senses and see they can do better owning the means of production themselves. What do you care.

Are these foreign companies still doing the day to day operations of these oil businesses as often happens in "nationalization" moves. Normally all that really changes is a more favorable split of the money for the home country.

[Tom]

were the thugs that the people of their countries voted into office. In their countries they are seen as hero's for standing-up to the U.S. You see the people in those countries see the U.S as the thugish.

He could have shook hands and not shook hands with any number of people but he though he would respect the people of those countries by shanking hands with the officials that were lawfully elected. Makes sense to me.

So you would have had no problem with him shaking hands with Hitler?
EXACT same thing Judge, EXACT same thing.

The problem with your theory is that he was elected BY US and these people disrespect us.

[PaceAdvantage]

I don't know if he is the only one Jim, but it sure would be refreshing if there were more leaders like him around the world.
The United States has certainly engaged in a very regrettable foreign policy agenda over the last sixty years that has rightfully enraged thousands of people all around the world. There is a lot for which to apologize.
The U.S. certainly isn't the only country to engage in such actions, and it would be refreshing if more leaders stepped forward like he has done. The whole "my-country-right-or-wrong" approach is moronic when embraced by average citizens, and it is perhaps even more ridiculous when national leaders take that stance.I think we should get rid of the concept of sovereign nations and just become one world...like the Michael Jackson song...what do you think?

[PaceAdvantage]

Aren't nations around the world that have a democratically elected government going to be more likely to go along with an initiative proposed by an American president with high approval ratings in their own country?No, unless it advances THAT country's interests.

All this conciliatory talk by Obama is seen as WEAK behind closed doors. Leaders of other nations are now EMBOLDENED to take advantage of this perceived weakess by going against this "popular" US president, which will in turn win them FAVOR in their home country, as they are seen going up against the mighty (but now much weaker) US. In fact, I would say that Obama's love fest makes him so much more WEAKER than Bush, allowing countries that would not push the envelope under Bush to make grandstanding a national pastime in order to win favor with their own people. Make no mistake, America will continue to be hated and envied no matter who is in the White House.If Obama (or any president with high foreign approval ratings) asks a leader of a democratically elected country to go along on some high profile initiative, isn't that leader more likely to do it if for no other reason than it may help his or her own domestic political careers?Absolutely NOT, especially if it does NOT advance the foreign country's interests. You honestly think a leader of a democratically elected country will go along on some high profile initiative if there is NOTHING in it for the other country, simply because Obama is "popular?" Wow...

On a personal note, what brought you out of your shell sixteen months after registering?

[PaceAdvantage]

miraga2 careful with the coherent post around here you are going to be labled a crack-pot by the right.I just love replies like this. They really enhance the overall setting of off-topic. Keep up the revolting contributions Judge...they're awesome!

[PaceAdvantage]

The analogy I made between women who marry serial killers serving life-sentences and Obama apologists on off-topic gains even more credence with the production of this thread.

[ArlJim78]

On a personal note, what brought you out of your shell sixteen months after registering?
obviously he will answer for himself.
we know each other from another forum, and there are people on that forum that frequently mention the PA off topic section in an unflattering way. (not miraja2)

my guess is he was just checking things out and wanted to weigh in. he's always been up for a good civil debate, so even though we don't agree on too many issues, miraja2 is one of the good guys.

[Tom]

I think we should get rid of the concept of sovereign nations and just become one world...like the Michael Jackson song...what do you think?

Yes, yes, we an all be dems! We are the....the...WEIRD!

GYUrjQzclqM

[ArlJim78]

finally, a cogent explanation of the Obama foreign policy doctrine

dsKO_r76kfQ

[NJ Stinks]

The analogy I made between women who marry serial killers serving life-sentences and Obama apologists on off-topic gains even more credence with the production of this thread.

Like I care whether you agree with me or not, PA.

You talk like a guy who spends a lot of time abroad. I guess you and I haven't visited the same countries since the last election. As a matter of fact, people I visited in last November hope like hell that the U.S. returns to pre-Bush policies ASAP. They may be envious of the U.S. but they also used to see us as a country they could trust to do the right thing. Restoring that trust is by far the most important thing to them where the USA is concerned.

In fact, I would say that Obama's love fest makes him so much more WEAKER than Bush, allowing countries that would not push the envelope under Bush to make grandstanding a national pastime in order to win favor with their own people.

You mean like this quote from Chavez about Bush at the UN in 2006:
__________________________________________________ ________

Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez tore into his U.S. counterpart and his U.N. hosts Wednesday, likening President Bush to the devil and telling the General Assembly that its system is "worthless."
"The devil came here yesterday," Chavez said, referring to Bush, who addressed the world body during its annual meeting Tuesday. "And it smells of sulfur still today."

Chavez accused Bush of having spoken "as if he owned the world" and said a psychiatrist could be called to analyze the statement. (Watch Hugo Chavez cross himself as he tells world leaders he can smell the devil -- 1:06 (http://javascript%3cb%3e%3c/b%3E:cnnVideo('play','/video/world/2006/09/20/sots.chavez.un.cnn','2006/09/27');))

"As the spokesman of imperialism, he came to share his nostrums to try to preserve the current pattern of domination, exploitation and pillage of the peoples of the world. An Alfred Hitchcock movie could use it as a scenario. I would even propose a title: 'The Devil's Recipe.' "

http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/americas/09/20/chavez.un/index.html

__________________________________________________ _______

No - that would never happen to Bush. :rolleyes:

[Lefty]

stinks, what were those pre-Bush policies pray tell? You mean capitulation to the will of other countries. Do you know why France Germany and Russia were against the Iraq war? I'd like to know if you know.

[NJ Stinks]

Pre-emptive strike at Iraq killing thousands of innocent people and torture are two big ones, Lefty.

I'm guessing it was access to oil in Iraq. So what? What about all the other countries around the world?

[ElKabong]

I hate to disappoint NJ-stinks, but I work in a building full of Frenchmen/ women. They hate us today. They hated us when GWB was president. They'll hate us when FUB0 gets ousted in 2012. Get that thru your head.

A lot of these countries desire a weak US president. They have one now, but their dislike/ hatred for the US won't go away.

[rastajenk]

"What about all the other countries around the world?

What about 'em?

[NJ Stinks]

I hate to disappoint NJ-stinks, but I work in a building full of Frenchmen/ women. They hate us today. They hated us when GWB was president. They'll hate us when FUB0 gets ousted in 2012. Get that thru your head.

A lot of these countries desire a weak US president. They have one now, but their dislike/ hatred for the US won't go away.

You didn't disappoint me, Elkabong.

[PaceAdvantage]

You mean like this quote from Chavez about Bush at the UN in 2006:Talk, as Obama has so adeptly shown throughout his brief but shining career, is cheap.

I'm thinking more along the lines of actions.

Talk is so cheap, in fact, they're already TALKING BAD about Obama...the hero...the loved one around the world....France no less...Sarkozy calling Obama "inexperienced." Hell, you don't need Sarkozy to tell you that...we've been telling you that for a couple of years now...

I guess this means Sarkozy is a closet-racist. After all, there is no possible reason ANYONE could EVER criticize the mighty-Obama, other than they must be racist...:lol:

[miraja2]

even though we don't agree on too many issues, miraja2 is one of the good guys.
Thanks for the kind words Jim, and as you know, the feeling is mutual....(even if you are a conservative).
As for why I decided to post here, I still spend most of my internet horse-board time on another site, but I figured a little variety never hurt.

[miraja2]

You honestly think a leader of a democratically elected country will go along on some high profile initiative if there is NOTHING in it for the other country, simply because Obama is "popular?" Wow...
Do you honestly think that democratically elected leaders always do what is in the best interest of their country? They often don't. Whether in the United States, or elsewhere in the world, leaders in a democratic nation often put their own re-election chances ahead of national interest.
It is blatantly obvious that such a leader would be less likely to go along with proposals from a very unpopular U.S. President because it might hurt that leader's chance of re-election more than going along with the plan of a U.S. president that is popular in their country. It is obvious.
Now, would they go along with a proposal from a U.S. President that would be damaging for their own country JUST because a popular U.S. president proposed it? Of course not. But to suggest that foreign leaders always act in the best interest of their country is a bit absurd, given that we all know that political leaders in both parties in this country regularly sacrifice what is in their country's best interest to further their own political ambitions.

[PaceAdvantage]

OK, then revise my statement to include what's best for the individual as well, although I can't see how doing something that doesn't APPEAR best for the country (or at least be spun that way with dazzling rhetoric) is going to help anyone win an election....

[ElKabong]

You didn't disappoint me, Elkabong.

That's a nice...

You approve of foreign workers talking down your country? OK.