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

[finknottle]

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.

 

How dare you say that about a Founding Father! Everything he said, intended to say, or would have said had he known anything about an issue shall be taken as the Law which Governs this Country throughout Eternity, whether it be about net neutrality, patentability of gene sequences, or if internet access constitutes a basic human right.

[blzrul]

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.

Well we could just call in all the debts they owe us...unless we've forgiven them they're still paying for WWII if not the first one.

 

And who says we have to kiss up to the world? I guess if we're going to invade a sovereign nation we would have to, but the US has carried the rest of the world long enough IMHO.

[Magox]

Well we could just call in all the debts they owe us...unless we've forgiven them they're still paying for WWII if not the first one.

 

And who says we have to kiss up to the world? I guess if we're going to invade a sovereign nation we would have to, but the US has carried the rest of the world long enough IMHO.

No I think you mean the debts that we owe them. We are not a creditor nation anymore blzrul we are the largest debtor nation in the world bar none.

 

and ya, good question, who is saying that we have to kiss up to the world? I surely didn't, I think you didn't comprehend what I was saying, the message is a good one, I agree with the premise of what he is trying to say, my argument is that it is a naive one, naive to think that all of a sudden China, Russia and others will decide to play along with what it is that we are trying to do. Their agenda is a deep rooted one, one that wonderful words such as "hope" and "change" can not undo.

 

I absolutely agree that we have carried the rest of the world long enough as well, but that is besides the point.

[DC Tom]

Well we could just call in all the debts they owe us...unless we've forgiven them they're still paying for WWII if not the first one.

 

We forgave them.

 

Particularly the Soviets...geez, the interest on the value of the shoes we "loaned" alone...

[GG]

Particularly the Soviets...geez, the interest on the value of the shoes we "loaned" alone...

 

And Spam. Don't forget the Spam.

[DC Tom]

And Spam. Don't forget the Spam.

 

Little known fact: for about two generations after WWII, "Spam", "Willys" (as in "jeep") and "Studebaker" (as in truck) became part of the Russain vernacular, we gave them so much/many of each.

[GG]

Little known fact: for about two generations after WWII, "Spam", "Willys" (as in "jeep") and "Studebaker" (as in truck) became part of the Russain vernacular, we gave them so much/many of each.

 

I wouldn't get carried away with that fact. Spam was called by a Russian name; Willys is unpronounceable in Russian; Studebaker in the vernacular?

[Alaska Darin]

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.

Not really. It's more important to do what is right for your citizens than to hold hands with another country no matter what the consequences. Adaptability.

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.

Who took it as an absolute? And why would it even matter?

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

We rarely do what is right for any reason other than economics and even that is debatable. The idea that the U.S. leads is nothing but political trumpeting.

[Alaska Darin]

Simple barb my ass, you pretty much accused me of being irresponsible based on who the hell knows.

Yeah, a simple barb. And I didn't accuse you of being irresponsible. Not being responsible for anything isn't the same as being irresponsible. Somehow I doubt that you make any decisions in this representative republic for anything but your daily life. Maybe I'm wrong but I doubt it.

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.

Then there isn't a single responsible nation on this planet. Many do some of the things you alluded to, some do more but most do what is in their best interest in the short term regardless of the long term implications (which seem to be mostly disregarded)

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"?

Public image isn't the same thing as being hurt politically. And you're right that it's hopeless to continue the conversation on this subject because you're pretty much wrong.

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.

That's the fallacy of it. You're right that they aren't keeping the oil for themselves but you're wrong that it wasn't all about economics. War is almost always about economics and this one was no different.

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 doh.gif .

Yeah, it is a fact. He said it. That's fact. He meant it. Also fact. I don't know why that's so hard.

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 laugh.gif 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 rolleyes.gif

It kind of is an absolute. Every situation should be judged on its own merit, regardless of past alliances. Do what is best for your citizens first, last, and always. Not what is best for the some other country because you've had a long term relationship.

 

But thanks for making it about me. Shows how bankrupt your argument really is.

[Alaska Darin]

How dare you say that about a Founding Father! Everything he said, intended to say, or would have said had he known anything about an issue shall be taken as the Law which Governs this Country throughout Eternity, whether it be about net neutrality, patentability of gene sequences, or if internet access constitutes a basic human right.

Who said anything of the sort? You're basically advocating my position and apparently don't know it. My take on Washington's statement is that of adaptability based on what is best. That doesn't seem to be at all different from what you're alluding to.

 

Nice try, though.

[GG]

Not really. It's more important to do what is right for your citizens than to hold hands with another country no matter what the consequences. Adaptability.

 

Who took it as an absolute? And why would it even matter?

 

We rarely do what is right for any reason other than economics and even that is debatable. The idea that the U.S. leads is nothing but political trumpeting.

 

But if his intent was not an absolute call to end all long term alliances, then how does that jibe with adaptability and keeping options open? There's also the other side of the debate that nobody will take US backing and alliance seriously if it's subject to waffling every year or so. The long term alliance with UK has proved successful on many fronts over many generations for obvious reasons, due to shared history, culture, language, customs & laws. USA's backing of NATO was important in the aftermath of WWII, while its mission has evolved with the changed fronts of the Cold War. Washington's view on long term alliances should be applied not to whether US should be committed long term to NATO, but which countries should be given entry to NATO's protection.

 

Doing things for USA's economic benefit was the main cause of the Revolution, so I don't see how that would have changed over 233 years.

[blzrul]

No I think you mean the debts that we owe them. We are not a creditor nation anymore blzrul we are the largest debtor nation in the world bar none.

 

and ya, good question, who is saying that we have to kiss up to the world? I surely didn't, I think you didn't comprehend what I was saying, the message is a good one, I agree with the premise of what he is trying to say, my argument is that it is a naive one, naive to think that all of a sudden China, Russia and others will decide to play along with what it is that we are trying to do. Their agenda is a deep rooted one, one that wonderful words such as "hope" and "change" can not undo.

 

I absolutely agree that we have carried the rest of the world long enough as well, but that is besides the point.

I wasn't disagreeing with you.

[Magox]

Yeah, a simple barb. And I didn't accuse you of being irresponsible. Not being responsible for anything isn't the same as being irresponsible. Somehow I doubt that you make any decisions in this representative republic for anything but your daily life. Maybe I'm wrong but I doubt it.

 

 

Can you give me an example of how you do? just wonderin

 

Then there isn't a single responsible nation on this planet. Many do some of the things you alluded to, some do more but most do what is in their best interest in the short term regardless of the long term implications (which seem to be mostly disregarded)

 

I never said that there was a country that acted completely responsible, I didn't even imply it. Were you assuming again?

 

Public image isn't the same thing as being hurt politically. And you're right that it's hopeless to continue the conversation on this subject because you're pretty much wrong.

 

Oh God!

 

That's the fallacy of it. You're right that they aren't keeping the oil for themselves but you're wrong that it wasn't all about economics. War is almost always about economics and this one was no different.

 

Well, if it was all about economics, then it was a poor decision, because we will never make up $1 Trillion from the wars we spent in both Iraq and Afghanistan. Did securing oil play a role? most likely, was it "all about economics" most likely not. You are right though, we probably wanted to import all that oil from Afghanistan oh and that poppy, we gotta keep our citizens of N.Y and L.A happy.

 

Yeah, it is a fact. He said it. That's fact. He meant it. Also fact. I don't know why that's so hard.

 

Once again, never disputed that he said it. The dispute is whether or not his comment is a fact, and it isn't. We've all ready covered this three times now, the question is will you bring it up a fourth?

 

It kind of is an absolute. Every situation should be judged on its own merit, regardless of past alliances. Do what is best for your citizens first, last, and always. Not what is best for the some other country because you've had a long term relationship.

"kind of is an absolute"? What the hell does that mean? No such thing, It either is or isn't, period. Hence, the term absolute, and once again, you must be referring to your bizarro dictionary. And in regards to your other comment, I agree with that for the most part, but not in absolute terms

 

But thanks for making it about me. Shows how bankrupt your argument really is.

 

[Alaska Darin]

But if his intent was not an absolute call to end all long term alliances, then how does that jibe with adaptability and keeping options open?

Uh, what?

There's also the other side of the debate that nobody will take US backing and alliance seriously if it's subject to waffling every year or so. The long term alliance with UK has proved successful on many fronts over many generations for obvious reasons, due to shared history, culture, language, customs & laws. USA's backing of NATO was important in the aftermath of WWII, while its mission has evolved with the changed fronts of the Cold War. Washington's view on long term alliances should be applied not to whether US should be committed long term to NATO, but which countries should be given entry to NATO's protection.

Yeah, nothing better than spending trillions of dollars we don't have protecting the stuff of our economic competitors. NATO's been utterly brilliant.

 

I've never sat in any strategic meeting and thought it was a bad thing that others didn't know exactly what I was thinking. Honoring a single commitment isn't the same thing as hamstringing yourself because you shook hands one time or a hundred. Every situation should be judged on it's own merit rather than entered into blindly. Sins of the past don't have to be repeated...

Doing things for USA's economic benefit was the main cause of the Revolution, so I don't see how that would have changed over 233 years.

It hasn't. Hence the original point.

[Alaska Darin]

blink.gif Can you give me an example of how you do? just wonderin

Why are you making it about me? I've never alluded to anything along the lines of your commitment.

I never said that there was a country that acted completely responsible, I didn't even imply it. Were you assuming again?

Pathetic.

Oh God! rolleyes.gif

Realizing your folly?

Well, if it was all about economics, then it was a poor decision, because we will never make up $1 Trillion from the wars we spent in both Iraq and Afghanistan. Did securing oil play a role? most likely, was it "all about economics" most likely not.

The only statement in that quote that was correct is "it was a poor decision". Because it was.

You are right though, we probably wanted to import all that oil from Afghanistan oh and that poppy, we gotta keep our citizens of N.Y and L.A happy.

Afghanistan had nothing to do with oil and I never said it did. You're simply deflecting.

Once again, never disputed that he said it. The dispute is whether or not his comment is a fact, and it isn't. We've all ready covered this three times now, the question is will you bring it up a fourth?

Probably not because it now seems as though you've gotten it.

"kind of is an absolute"? laugh.gif What the hell does that mean? No such thing, It either is or isn't, period. Hence, the term absolute, and once again, you must be referring to your bizarro dictionary. And in regards to your other comment, I agree with that for the most part, but not in absolute terms

Semantics. You spend an awful lot of time concentrating on minutia and missing the real issues. Of course, that's pretty much what politicians count on.

[GG]

Uh, what?

 

Yeah, nothing better than spending trillions of dollars we don't have protecting the stuff of our economic competitors. NATO's been utterly brilliant.

 

I've never sat in any strategic meeting and thought it was a bad thing that others didn't know exactly what I was thinking. Honoring a single commitment isn't the same thing as hamstringing yourself because you shook hands one time or a hundred. Every situation should be judged on it's own merit rather than entered into blindly. Sins of the past don't have to be repeated...

 

It hasn't. Hence the original point.

 

If you are not willing to commit to long term commitments, no one will take your short term commitment seriously. It's one thing to be cavalier about that obligation/commitment when you're a pissant, it's totally different when you're the global leader. Not saying that Obama is wrong that the rest of the world needs to carry most of its weight, but it's dead wrng to believe that US should step aside from its leadership position.

 

Spending trillions on DoD is probably a better investment from the USA's macro perspective as anything I can imagine the government spending.

[Alaska Darin]

If you are not willing to commit to long term commitments, no one will take your short term commitment seriously. It's one thing to be cavalier about that obligation/commitment when you're a pissant, it's totally different when you're the global leader.

I guess that depends on your definition of "long term commitments".

Not saying that Obama is wrong that the rest of the world needs to carry most of its weight, but it's dead wrng to believe that US should step aside from its leadership position.

Who is advocating that? Leadership comes in many forms and delegation is certainly one tool we rarely seem to use. One of the reasons the Euros won't handle **** in their own yard is because we ALWAYS do.

Spending trillions on DoD is probably a better investment from the USA's macro perspective as anything I can imagine the government spending.

That's one way of looking at it. Of course I'd rather have that money spent on U.S. soil than German/English/Japanese/Korean.

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

That's one way of looking at it. Of course I'd rather have that money spent on U.S. soil than German/English/Japanese/Korean.

 

Indeed. It's high time our "allies" who seem so willing to harass us politically spend more of their dime on their own defense.

[GG]

Who is advocating that? Leadership comes in many forms and delegation is certainly one tool we rarely seem to use. One of the reasons the Euros won't handle **** in their own yard is because we ALWAYS do.

 

And when we do step aside to let them do things, the eventual clean up cost is a magnitude greater. That's why I'm convinced that Bush/Cheney invaded Iraq, because they reasoned that the longer term cost to the US would have been much more severe, even though Europe is really the near term beneficiary of a subdued Mid East.

 

That's one way of looking at it. Of course I'd rather have that money spent on U.S. soil than German/English/Japanese/Korean.

 

The spending on DoD pays for itself via dollar being the global currency.

[DC Tom]

And when we do step aside to let them do things, the eventual clean up cost is a magnitude greater. That's why I'm convinced that Bush/Cheney invaded Iraq, because they reasoned that the longer term cost to the US would have been much more severe, even though Europe is really the near term beneficiary of a subdued Mid East.

 

 

I tend to doubt that was their reason (based on some of the coversations I've had with people in the administration at the time, I'm not sure there even WAS a single coherent reason).

 

But it certainly is a reason, or justification if you will. And not an entirely bad one at that.