Obama to world: Don't expect America to fix it all

[BillsFan-4-Ever]

Obama to world: Don't expect America to fix it all

 

 

UNITED NATIONS – In a blunt challenge to his nation's critics, President Barack Obama on Wednesday exhorted world leaders who once accused the United States of acting alone to now join with him in solving global crises rather than wait for America to do it on its own.

 

In his first address to the U.N. General Assembly, Obama sought to set a new tone in U.S. relations, moving away from the unilateralism of his predecessor, George W. Bush. He coupled conciliatory words about a "new era of engagement" with a summons for other nations to shoulder more of the burden.

 

"Those who used to chastise America for acting alone in the world cannot now stand by and wait for America to solve the world's problems alone," Obama said.

 

"Now is the time for all of us to take our share of responsibility for a global response to global challenges."

Obama said past policies and a perception of unilateralism by the United States had fed "an almost reflexive anti-Americanism" that too often was used as an excuse for inaction.

 

"The time has come for the world to move in a new direction," Obama said before a U.N. chamber packed with more than 100 of his global counterparts.

 

------------- yahoo news

[DC Tom]

Obama to world: Don't expect America to fix it all

 

 

UNITED NATIONS – In a blunt challenge to his nation's critics, President Barack Obama on Wednesday exhorted world leaders who once accused the United States of acting alone to now join with him in solving global crises rather than wait for America to do it on its own.

 

In his first address to the U.N. General Assembly, Obama sought to set a new tone in U.S. relations, moving away from the unilateralism of his predecessor, George W. Bush. He coupled conciliatory words about a "new era of engagement" with a summons for other nations to shoulder more of the burden.

 

"Those who used to chastise America for acting alone in the world cannot now stand by and wait for America to solve the world's problems alone," Obama said.

 

"Now is the time for all of us to take our share of responsibility for a global response to global challenges."

Obama said past policies and a perception of unilateralism by the United States had fed "an almost reflexive anti-Americanism" that too often was used as an excuse for inaction.

 

"The time has come for the world to move in a new direction," Obama said before a U.N. chamber packed with more than 100 of his global counterparts.

 

------------- yahoo news

 

There's a delicious irony in comparing that to the administration's "Obama to Americans: We'll Fix Everything" message.

[Magox]

There's a delicious irony in comparing that to the administration's "Obama to Americans: We'll Fix Everything" message.

you're right, but other than that, I thought it was a good message, we have to keep in mind who his audience is, and their unrelenting dependence of government assistance.

[IDBillzFan]

While listening to the speeches today, I picked up a little life tip for everyone. When you feel like your job sucks and it's a dead end and there is no meaning to it, remember, it could be worse. You could be Muammar Qaddafi's translator.

[The Poojer]

Nice to hear someone say that, doubt anyone will listen, but its great that it was said

 

Obama to world: Don't expect America to fix it all

 

 

UNITED NATIONS – In a blunt challenge to his nation's critics, President Barack Obama on Wednesday exhorted world leaders who once accused the United States of acting alone to now join with him in solving global crises rather than wait for America to do it on its own.

 

In his first address to the U.N. General Assembly, Obama sought to set a new tone in U.S. relations, moving away from the unilateralism of his predecessor, George W. Bush. He coupled conciliatory words about a "new era of engagement" with a summons for other nations to shoulder more of the burden.

 

"Those who used to chastise America for acting alone in the world cannot now stand by and wait for America to solve the world's problems alone," Obama said.

 

"Now is the time for all of us to take our share of responsibility for a global response to global challenges."

Obama said past policies and a perception of unilateralism by the United States had fed "an almost reflexive anti-Americanism" that too often was used as an excuse for inaction.

 

"The time has come for the world to move in a new direction," Obama said before a U.N. chamber packed with more than 100 of his global counterparts.

 

------------- yahoo news

[Magox]

Nice to hear someone say that, doubt anyone will listen, but its great that it was said

After further review, I find what Obama said as awfully naive, good message, but naive.

 

Let's be real here, countries like China and Russia are not going to fall in line just because BO makes a nice speech and says that this is a different America than before, or countries like Italy, France or Spain are gonna say, "ok sign me up, let's send more troops over to help the cause."

 

Those sort of things just don't happen.

[DC Tom]

Let's be real here, countries like China and Russia are not going to fall in line just because BO makes a nice speech and says that this is a different America than before, or countries like Italy, France or Spain are gonna say, "ok sign me up, let's send more troops over to help the cause."

 

Those sort of things just don't happen.

 

You're forgetting, though...Obama stands for "Hope" and "Change", and won't pursue anything resembling a hard-line foreign policy because it's more important that other countries feel good about us. So of course Russia and China are going to bend over backwards and help us out.

[Magox]

You're forgetting, though...Obama stands for "Hope" and "Change", and won't pursue anything resembling a hard-line foreign policy because it's more important that other countries feel good about us. So of course Russia and China are going to bend over backwards and help us out.

What he risks is not so much the same results that we have had with China, Russia and others, those guys won't ever be our true "friends", but the alienation of our Allies in England, Canada and Israel. These countries made some very unpopular decisions back home to help out our "cause", and now we have been disrespecting them to a certain degree. A few months ago Obama disrespected Gordon Brown and his family, the Canadians are pissed at some of the Protectionist measures we are taking and now the Israelis and their settlement plans that they have.

[Alaska Darin]

What he risks is not so much the same results that we have had with China, Russia and others, those guys won't ever be our true "friends", but the alienation of our Allies in England, Canada and Israel. These countries made some very unpopular decisions back home to help out our "cause", and now we have been disrespecting them to a certain degree. A few months ago Obama disrespected Gordon Brown and his family, the Canadians are pissed at some of the Protectionist measures we are taking and now the Israelis and their settlement plans that they have.

Who cares? The United States should be VERY careful about long term alliances, a fact that was driven home in George Washington's final speech as President. Are you kidding me?

[GG]

Who cares? The United States should be VERY careful about long term alliances, a fact that was driven home in George Washington's final speech as President. Are you kidding me?

 

Of course he gave that as his final speech. He could be cavalier about how US was going to repay the war debt and emerge as a country, since it wasn't going to be on his watch.

[Magox]

Who cares? The United States should be VERY careful about long term alliances, a fact that was driven home in George Washington's final speech as President. Are you kidding me?

Who cares? I the !@#$ do, that's who, and not only do I, but the majority of responsable people or nations do as well.

Now that maybe your stance AD, I have a different take on things than you do. I happen to believe it is a good idea to forge long lasting strong relationships with friends and allies. Not just on the national stage, but on a personal level as well. If you disrespect your friend or Ally, then they will be less eager to help you out when it comes time.

 

Also, what is this "fact" you refer to regarding George Washington? A "fact" that he said "The United States should be VERY careful about long term alliances" in his final speech? or that it is a "fact" that we should be VERY careful about long term speeches? That would hardly be a "fact" AD.

[Alaska Darin]

Of course he gave that as his final speech. He could be cavalier about how US was going to repay the war debt and emerge as a country, since it wasn't going to be on his watch.

I don't think his opinion was as cavalier as that post.

[Alaska Darin]

Who cares? I the !@#$ do, that's who, and not only do I, but the majority of responsable people or nations do as well.

What exactly is a "responsible nation"? And I could be way wrong, but I somehow doubt that you are all that responsible for anything.

Now that maybe your stance AD, I have a different take on things than you do. I happen to believe it is a good idea to forge long lasting strong relationships with friends and allies. Not just on the national stage, but on a personal level as well. If you disrespect your friend or Ally, then they will be less eager to help you out when it comes time.

There are no such things as "friends and allies" on the national stage and "personal relationships" among politicians are about show, not substance. Every nation is generally out for themselves and the United States leads the way in that very endeavor. Our allies will "help" whenever it is either economically or politically expedient for them to do so. To think anything else is pure folly and totally ignorant of history.

Also, what is this "fact" you refer to regarding George Washington? A "fact" that he said "The United States should be VERY careful about long term alliances" in his final speech? or that it is a "fact" that we should be VERY careful about long term speeches? That would hardly be a "fact" AD.

Are you !@#$ing retarded? Apparently. So:

 

"It is our true policy to steer clear of permanent alliances with any portion of the foreign world, so far, I mean, as we are now at liberty to do it; for let me not be understood as capable of patronizing infidelity to existing engagements. I hold the maxim no less applicable to public than to private affairs that honesty is always the best policy. I repeat, therefore, let those engagements be observed in their genuine sense. But in my opinion it is unnecessary and would be unwise to extend them."

 

Washington also warned of the evils of the Two party system and was dead nutz about that as well.

[Magox]

What exactly is a "responsible nation"? And I could be way wrong, but I somehow doubt that you are all that responsible for anything.

 

oh ya AD? if your going to go out on a limb and make a statement as such, enlighten me, oh mr. judgemental holier than thou. I have an idea, but I'd love to hear what you're basing that off of? prick

 

 

There are no such things as "friends and allies" on the national stage and "personal relationships" among politicians are about show, not substance. Every nation is generally out for themselves and the United States leads the way in that very endeavor. Our allies will "help" whenever it is either economically or politically expedient for them to do so. To think anything else is pure folly and totally ignorant of history.

 

no such things as "friend and allies" on the national stage? Oh please AD, spare me your ridiculous absolute statements. Talk about tainted. I don't doubt that in many if not most cases that countries act on what is best for their own country, but maybe just maybe if you were able to think out side of that cynical mind you have that it could just possibly be best for countries to have strong ties with one another. England took a big hit for supporting the US in the Iraq war, tell me how it was "politically expedient for them to do so"?

 

Are you !@#$ing retarded? Apparently. So:

 

"It is our true policy to steer clear of permanent alliances with any portion of the foreign world, so far, I mean, as we are now at liberty to do it; for let me not be understood as capable of patronizing infidelity to existing engagements. I hold the maxim no less applicable to public than to private affairs that honesty is always the best policy. I repeat, therefore, let those engagements be observed in their genuine sense. But in my opinion it is unnecessary and would be unwise to extend them."

 

I'm the retard?, but yet you were the one that said " The United States should be VERY careful about long term alliances, a fact that was driven home in George Washington's final speech as president" A fact? Really, that was a fact? my educated guess, based on your recent comment is that you have no earthly !@#$ing clue what a "fact" is. look in the mirror before you call someone a retard, specially when you are on the wrong end of the argument

 

Washington also warned of the evils of the Two party system and was dead nutz about that as well.

[GG]

I don't think his opinion was as cavalier as that post.

 

Actually it was a cavalier opinion, because Washington owed plenty of his lot in life to previous alliances, whether they were with Indians or the French. So you have to take his sage advice with a grain of salt, as if the Union had solely followed the advice of Southern gentlemen, a different history would have been written.

 

And as for his warnings about extending the alliances, you have to look at the context of the time, and the understanding that he was referring specifically to the French. When you read his proclamation in that narrow context, it makes a lot more sense not to extend the alliance at the time given the troubles that France was going through.

 

But the reality set in that a new nation could not make a go of it alone at that time, much like a superpower can't go alone at this time.

[Alaska Darin]

oh ya AD? if your going to go out on a limb and make a statement as such, enlighten me, oh mr. judgemental holier than thou. I have an idea, but I'd love to hear what you're basing that off of? prick

How about your inability to answer a simple question but instead concentrating on the minutia of a simple barb? What exactly is a responsible nation?

no such things as "friend and allies" on the national stage? Oh please AD, spare me your ridiculous absolute statements. Talk about tainted. I don't doubt that in many if not most cases that countries act on what is best for their own country, but maybe just maybe if you were able to think out side of that cynical mind you have that it could just possibly be best for countries to have strong ties with one another. England took a big hit for supporting the US in the Iraq war, tell me how it was "politically expedient for them to do so"?

Really? How exactly did it hurt them politically on the world stage in 2003? I notice you didn't use the economic part of the equation I offered, probably because you realize how ridiculous it'd look based on a war that was pretty much about oil.

I'm the retard?, but yet you were the one that said " The United States should be VERY careful about long term alliances, a fact that was driven home in George Washington's final speech as president" A fact? Really, that was a fact? my educated guess, based on your recent comment is that you have no earthly !@#$ing clue what a "fact" is. look in the mirror before you call someone a retard, specially when you are on the wrong end of the argument

Yeah, it's pretty much a fact that George Washington cautioned about long term alliances (a fact that he was correct about, which every decent leader would understand and could actually apply to any situation. It's a simple concept, really). It's so much a fact that I actually put the quote from the speech in the follow up post, yet I have no idea what a fact is? I'm not sure why you're so confused about something that's so friggin' obvious that even Gene Frenkle could understand it.

 

But somehow I'm on the wrong end of the argument.

[Alaska Darin]

Actually it was a cavalier opinion, because Washington owed plenty of his lot in life to previous alliances, whether they were with Indians or the French. So you have to take his sage advice with a grain of salt, as if the Union had solely followed the advice of Southern gentlemen, a different history would have been written.

I don't see the merit of that argument.

And as for his warnings about extending the alliances, you have to look at the context of the time, and the understanding that he was referring specifically to the French. When you read his proclamation in that narrow context, it makes a lot more sense not to extend the alliance at the time given the troubles that France was going through.

Which simply means Washington was practical and understood that each situation needed to be judged on its own merit and responded to accordingly.

But the reality set in that a new nation could not make a go of it alone at that time, much like a superpower can't go alone at this time.

Superpowers have never "gone it alone".

[GG]

I don't see the merit of that argument.

 

It's futile to stick to an idealistic opinion of one founding father, when the history of the nation was built on a completely opposite direction.

 

Which simply means Washington was practical and understood that each situation needed to be judged on its own merit and responded to accordingly.

 

Which is why it doesn't make sense to take his quote to mean that absolutely all long term alliances should be scrapped. The longest alliance US has had is with UK, and it has helped both countries. All others are judged solely based on USA's interests.

 

Superpowers have never "gone it alone".

 

They don't do it alone, but they certainly lead and provide a backbone to a world full of jellyfish.

[Magox]

How about your inability to answer a simple question but instead concentrating on the minutia of a simple barb? What exactly is a responsible nation?

 

Simple barb my ass, you pretty much accused me of being irresponsible based on who the hell knows. You want me to answer your open ended question? Sure, why the hell not, I'll play along. What is a responsible nation? In my view, a responsible nation is one that sets an example in humanitarian and social issues within it's own country, one that is environmentally conscience of their surroundings and are willing to make sacrafices in order to make that happen, a country that is willing to contribute militarily when called upon from their allies in order to try to help stabilize a region, even if that means making an unpopular political decision at home, a country that will help out economically when called upon to fund organizations such as the IMF to provide more stability to other countries in need, a country that practices good economic policies so that it doesn't disrupt trade world wide, a country that doesn't have ambitions of nuclear weapons in order to annihilate or directly threaten their neighbors for the purpose to instill fear and terror. Those are just a few examples of what I would consider responsible.

 

Really? How exactly did it hurt them politically on the world stage? Because the talking heads said so? I notice you didn't use the economic part of the equation I offered, probably because you realize how ridiculous it'd look based on a war that was pretty much about oil.

 

Oh God. How did it hurt them politically on the world stage? you mean other than being branded as greedy oil mongers who wanted to flex their emperialistic muscles upon a muslim nation, that one? I've lived abroad over the last few years, and I can tell you that the United States was definitely the big losers in regards to our public image worldwide, but England was a close second, well maybe not close but second none the less. I don't need a talking head to tell me what I all ready know, I've been around and I know this firsthand. If you don't see how they were hurt politically on the world stage, then it's hopeless to talk to you any further regarding this topic. The economics of it, really? So, I guess when England went to war with Iraq, it was "pretty much about oil"?

 

I worked for a commodity brokerage where all I did for 6 years was hedge and speculate on oil, and I can tell you this right now, the US and England is not keeping oil for themselves. That's not how it works AD, the 2 main benefits that we are receiving out of the oil industry in Iraq is that American and British companies have gained oil servicing contracts and that we have secured a trading partner that will sell us oil at a very small discount. We don't get to keep it, that is a fallacy that most ignorant people to this subject believe. And I can tell you this, it wasn't soley about economics, we will spend a lot more money on the total cost of the war than what we will ever receive in the oil servicing contracts and small discounts from the price of a barrel of oil.

 

Yeah, it's pretty much a fact that George Washington cautioned about long term alliances (a fact that he was correct about, which every decent leader would understand and could actually apply to any situation. It's a simple concept, really). It's so much a fact that I actually put the quote from the speech in the follow up post, yet I have no idea what a fact is? I'm not sure why you're so confused about something that's so friggin' obvious that even Gene Frenkle could understand it.

 

But somehow I'm on the wrong end of the argument.

 

I didn't say that he didn't say that, don't try to twist the argument around, let's just focus on your comment ok? I said that your comment regarding GW's statement is hardly a fact. "The United States should be VERY careful about long term alliances" I don't know what bizarro dictionary you used to support your definition of a fact, but that's not a !@#$ing fact . That is not something that is absolute, you may have that opinion and it may be shared by some or many but it doesn't make it a fact You know, I wouldn't be surprised AD that you would actually believe that just about everthing that comes out of your mouth is a fact

[OCinBuffalo]

After further review, I find what Obama said as awfully naive, good message, but naive.

 

Let's be real here, countries like China and Russia are not going to fall in line just because BO makes a nice speech and says that this is a different America than before, or countries like Italy, France or Spain are gonna say, "ok sign me up, let's send more troops over to help the cause."

 

Those sort of things just don't happen.

Ahh...but unfortunately, it appears that this administration thinks they do...based on the sheer "power" of Obama's words.

In fact, it's as though they truly believe that simply by saying it, "so shall it be".

 

This is a disturbing trend and I have settled upon a new word to define these "super-words" that apparently only Obama can use a replacement for substantive actions:

 

Wactions.

 

Wactions work just like magic spells, you simply need to recite the incantation(in some cases, 50 times a day), and the intended result is supposed to magically appear.

 

In this case, Obama, and more importantly his syncophants actually believe he can Waction his way into getting Europe(-England), etc. to action do something, instead of rolling over, ass in the air as usual. Love to see these Wactions actually deliver on their magic potential...or...are we old enough yet to know that magic doesn't exist?