So your argument is that he’s less fail than Bush? That seems rather irrelevant to the topic at hand and certainly far from a grand endorsement. I’m not sure that Sam even supported Bush.
So that they will be allies, and support our international goals. I’m not in favor of Cold War style protection, this is about trust not spending. But Russia is a powerful country that could destabilize (even more) very easily and become a danger to Eastern Europe. The effect of Russia dominating other countries will have global consequences for our economy and security.
It’s not against the rules to criticize a poster for the positions he takes or ask tough questions, but this kind of thing isn’t helpful. Let’s stick to the arguments being made in this thread and evaluate them on their merits.
Which Eastern European countries are moving into the Russian sphere of influence? Aren’t most Eastern European countries that weren’t already in Russia’s influence (like Belarussia) in the EU and loving all that cash that’s flowing in, or desperately trying to join?
Yes, it does -
I think you meant “not the best cite I haven’t read”.
Regards,
Shodan
This situation is due to to the election in Ukraine of a “pro-Russian” government replacing another admnistration that was much more favorable to the strenghtening of ties with the west.
Barring the organization of a coup, I can’t see how the USA foreign policy could have changed this situation.
Pointing out that you’ve got some sort of axe to grind with regards to Obama isn’t making it personal- it’s pointing out that you have made multiple threads like this one right here and have never, apparently, had your opinion swayed. If you’re not here for debate, then what *are *you here for? As Kimstu pointed out- if you made your titles and threads less inflammatory, they’d be taken more seriously. The ad hominem started with the thread title, not with my post.
Ah yes, I remember the great love between the French and American people during the Bush years. How terribly Obama has squandered it. :rolleyes:
The French have been big Obamaphiles thus far and the British seem to like him as well. I suspect a significant amount of this is, like the Nobel Peace Prize, due more to his Not-Being-Bush-ism than any foreign policy positions. It remains to be seen how this will continue but I’ve seen no evidence of “lost political stock”.
I would hazard the opinion you see what you want to see, to be frank, given your arguments in this thread, which really are quite odd.
However, taking US positive image as a reasonable proxy for this study PDF: U.S. Standing in the World: Causes, Consequences, and the Future presents objective data indicating that across the board, America’s image has substantially rebounded from historic lows of the prior American administration. Your earlier metric of achievements / failures relative to the Canadian example rather implies that “greater cooperation” means to you “America gets everything it wants.”
Regardless, in Europe, American influence is clearly rebounding.
I’m unaware of any government that has had any success with North Korea, this as a metric against the current American president is a truly daft metric.
Uncertainty of American support? Jaysus…
But no, you’re wrong. Erdogan is simply not a wilting flower.
Shrug, woo away. The American encirclement policy is so very Cold Warish.
Good, whatever you lot on the other side of the Pond thought, the idea of a volatile Ukraine being in NATO was not well received over here. Getting NATO involved in Russian - Ukrainian issues is daft and we wanted no part of it. As was clearly established in the 2008 NATO Summit.
Daft American neo-Imperialists wanting to use NATO for their rather mad and ridiculous neo-imperialist schemes and getting rebuffed is not an Obama administration failure. Rather it’s a success to get back to more moderate policies.
Well, I’d wager you’re not going to cite because in fact such a deterioration exists largley in your mind.
That’s … a… an extraordinary argument. I think extraordinary is the most flattering term I can think of, really.
And this assessment of the last incompetent:
[quote=“Sam_Stone, post:19, topic:542450”]
"
Well, I do quite a lot of work in Africa and I should say that it is in no way evident America’s image in Africa improved. In fact the objective evidence says the opposite.
That’s rather laughable assertion. A coalition of Blair the Poodle (thank God Labour is finally out…) and pipsqueaks working on a bribery basis…
Quite.
I’d rather suggest that jjimm was dismissing the American’s rather hyperbolic assessment of the flotilla…
Yep.
Want to Godwinize the situation?
A man leading a coalition of disaffected right-wingers takes office as head of a minority government. Shortly thereafter, he takes advantage of current events to cause the figurehead Head of State to dismiss the elected legislature whose support, or lack of it, is critical to his retaining power. Germany 1933? Or Canada 2009?
We might as well rename Great Debates Petty Partisan Sniping and have done with it. This sort of thread, and the “All religion suXXors” sister threads, are the reasons I seldom post in GD any more.
What, they didn 't take kindly to “freedom fries”? Of course, they are part of “Old Europe” as opposed to the Europe we liked between 2001-2008. Whatever can Obama ever do to take us back to the roses and chocolates relationship we enjoyed with our allies? He’s ruined everything.
Just looked this up mate, and as it turns out the Nato summit was in April 2008, when Bush was in office. It is really right queer to try to blame UKraine accepting that ex-the US, nobody sane in Nato wants them in, and the failure to convince the other members was under the prior American administration.
I believe it is becoming painfully evident why your OP is attracting the kind of comment it is.
If I posted something about, I dunno, the Evils of Cameron(*) all of a few weeks into the coalition and blustering on about the successes of Blair, I would likely get the same kind of response (even though I think most concerned posters here are very Labourish in views).
(*: I wouldn’t, I like him rather well actually)
Excuse me? You don’t think that pointing out extreme level cognitive dissonance isn’t helpful?
The guy praises when Dubya successfully makes poopie without getting any on the wall and would complain that Obama was showing off if he single-handedly plugged the BP Gusher.
Is there a limit to the number of times someone can post what is essentially the same OP in Great Debates? I seem to recall the likes of reeder being restricted in the pit.
-Joe
It’s not just that, his foreign policy does seem sensible and well-informed, rather than knee-jerk reactionary.
e.g. I like how he is getting tougher with Israel – I’m pro-Israel, but they can be their own worst enemy at times, and it helps neither country’s image to always support each other’s actions.
Perhaps he was a little soft abroad in the early days of his presidency; but then, he had to make it clear he wasn’t Bush.
The media have latched on to the concept of Obama as weak abroad, and have tried to keep it going despite the lack of supporting facts (the OP’s desperate list being good examples of the nonsense you hear).
- Turkey is turning radical and jockeying for power in the Middle East
not so
Turkey understands the Middle East much better than any American could ever do. He respects their customs. He is Muslim. He is perfect for negotiations. The US backed his efforts along with Brazil until he actually got Iran to agree to what Washington wanted 6 months previously. Then the US turned on Turkey. Turkey upstaged the US.
His position here is clear. He is probably the most respected Muslim leader in this region. He doesn’t have to jockey for any position. His position is clear. His power is clear to those with their eyes open.
**
Iran is ratcheting up its rhetoric and speeding up its nuclear program**.
Iran’s rhetoric is no different to Clinton’s.
It is speeding up it’s civilian nuclear programme with the help of Russia. Busheir should be open very soon.
What you are witnessing is a complete overhaul of world dominance by the USA.
Power is shifting. New alliances are being made. The USA needs to ditch Zionism and get on board the new ship or sink with the old one.
Even Petraeus knows the US foreign policy is doomed if you continue supporting the Zionists.
He should know shouldn’t he.
I think the uncertainty of American support for Israel has a hell of a lot to do with Turkey’s decision to help break the Gaza blockade.
After the 1967 war the US offered Israel a defence treaty so that in effect if they were attacked the US would ‘wade in’. Israel actually refused that offer. To get a defence treaty would have meant Israel defining it’s borders. Something which Israel declined to do as to this day it is still expanding it’s borders.
So there is no US/Israel mutual defence treaty.
There is however something called the NATO treaty of which the US and Turkey are members.
Israel is NOT part of NATO.
So in the event of an attack by Israel on a Turkish naval vessel, the USA by rights is duty bound to honour that NATO treaty.
So what we have is the question.
If Erdogan on board a Turkish naval ship gets attacked by Israel, WILL the USA honour the NATO treaty or not?
Are Americans willing to rush down the recruiting offices and sign up for an all out war or not.
If they have any sense they will ditch Israeli support. Israeli’s don’t give a damn about American’s. Just look at the USS Liberty as an example.
Mate, you’re off in lala land if you think the NATO treaty would be invoked and quite simply you don’t understand the treaty.
I don’t know what kind of ignorant tripe they are serving up in the Egyptian media, but
(i) NATO covers Europe and North America, there is no general obligation to respond outside of that geography. Israel is not Europe nor North America, so…; (ii) the treaty gives member states the flexibility to respond relative an incident including non-military response.
Relative to (i): NATO was not invoked, e.g. relative to the Falklands for the same geographic reason.
Fantasies of having NATO involved on the side of Turkey against Israel may be attractive in Egypt, but they’re ignorant fantasies based on a lack of understanding of NATO.
Turkey and Brazil got Iran to agree to what Washington wanted a year ago. Do you know what changed between a year ago and when the agreement was announced? Iran continued to enrich more uranium - so much so that this agreement still leaves Iran enough to potentially produce nuclear weapons. Therefore, the agreement is virtually worthless. The whole point of the agreement a year ago - which also involved Iran at least temporarily suspending uranium enrichment (and the recent agreement does not even mention) - was to take away a majority of the uranium that Iran enriched to foreclose even the possibility that they could develop nuclear weapons.
Russia is about to agree with the majority of the UN Security Council in approving another round of sanctions against Iran.
Article 5
The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognised by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.
Any such armed attack and all measures taken as a result thereof shall immediately be reported to the Security Council. Such measures shall be terminated when the Security Council has taken the measures necessary to restore and maintain international peace and security .
Article 6 (1)
For the purpose of Article 5, an armed attack on one or more of the Parties is deemed to include an armed attack:
[ul]
[li]on the territory of any of the Parties in Europe or North America, on the Algerian Departments of France (2), on the territory of or on the Islands under the jurisdiction of any of the Parties in the North Atlantic area north of the Tropic of Cancer;[/li][li]on the forces, vessels, or aircraft of any of the Parties, when in or over these territories or any other area in Europe in which occupation forces of any of the Parties were stationed on the date when the Treaty entered into force or the Mediterranean Sea or the North Atlantic area[/li][/ul]
http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natolive/official_texts_17120.htm
I stand corrected relative to the Med Sea, although I would argue that NATO would clearly choose to draw a line around this and there is not a snowball’s chance in hell that armed action would follow.