I don't see how saying that the US's relationship with Egypt is a work-in-progress is a gaffe. What would you have said?
Obama pressured Morsi into condemning the embassy attacks that he was previously silent on.
So Obama was technically correct that Egypt is not an ally in the sense that Britain or even Turkey is. But unlike what some media outlets wrote, this statement was no gaffe. Rather, Obama was playing hardball with Morsi, trying to impress upon him that the status of ‘major non-NATO ally’ is not automatic now that the Muslim Brotherhood is in control. It will have to be re-earned, at least from Obama’s point of view. And the lack of response on the embassy attack is not consistent with ally status. Non-NATO ally status is bestowed by a stroke of the presidential pen, so Obama could take it away.
White House spokesman Jay Carney added on Thursday that “Obama spoke with President Mohamed Morsi, the first Islamist leader following an uprising which toppled Mubarak last year, on Wednesday and impressed upon him the need to protect US diplomats…”
On September 22 2012 07:02 coverpunch wrote: But were any of these examples things that they would not have done anyways?
For one, the US was NOT happy with the effort that the rest of NATO put out in Libya (please learn to spell it correctly). If it weren't for the US, NATO would be totally ineffective.
As for Egypt, yes, I guess this gaffe is how you make friends. Straight from the school of Bush.
And Pakistan is closer to one of the places where Obama is spending political capital, not acquiring it.
It's astonishing these examples you come up with. Obama HAS had foreign policy victories and you haven't named any of the big ones. (hint: look at barackobama.com. His points are very different from yours)
A good foreign policy is that governments are persuaded to do things against public support and against their narrow-minded interests for the greater good. You don't have any examples where Obama is doing that.
However, the biggest tragedy isn't that Obama has been lackluster on foreign policy. It's that Romney would obviously be no better. That is worrying for America.
Even Libya was a 'victory' in US terms. In relative terms, a lot of the missions were carried by allies (mainly the UK and France) and the US managed to fly only a small amount of combat missions. Libya was truly multilateral.
Nothing Bush ever did was.
Read this report. Libya was not "truly multilateral" if you're going beyond sentiment.
I'm don't understand why the example of the US influence and role in the military operation in Libya (sorry about that) is a indicative of the US' foreign policy's weakness.
Are you saying a more effective foreign policy is a world where US involvement wasn't necessary?
On September 22 2012 07:02 coverpunch wrote: But were any of these examples things that they would not have done anyways?
For one, the US was NOT happy with the effort that the rest of NATO put out in Libya (please learn to spell it correctly). If it weren't for the US, NATO would be totally ineffective.
As for Egypt, yes, I guess this gaffe is how you make friends. Straight from the school of Bush.
And Pakistan is closer to one of the places where Obama is spending political capital, not acquiring it.
It's astonishing these examples you come up with. Obama HAS had foreign policy victories and you haven't named any of the big ones. (hint: look at barackobama.com. His points are very different from yours)
A good foreign policy is that governments are persuaded to do things against public support and against their narrow-minded interests for the greater good. You don't have any examples where Obama is doing that.
However, the biggest tragedy isn't that Obama has been lackluster on foreign policy. It's that Romney would obviously be no better. That is worrying for America.
Even Libya was a 'victory' in US terms. In relative terms, a lot of the missions were carried by allies (mainly the UK and France) and the US managed to fly only a small amount of combat missions. Libya was truly multilateral.
Nothing Bush ever did was.
Read this report. Libya was not "truly multilateral" if you're going beyond sentiment.
Libya (up to this point) has been a true victory for America. They are undergoing a democratic transition, and to top it all off, the populace is pro-America. As long as it stays that way (trickiest part), it shows good signs for the future.
On September 22 2012 07:14 Saryph wrote: Anyone else look at the returns that were released by the Romney campaign today?
You have to wonder what changes have been made to force such a long delay in releasing them.
Below is a link to a story discussing it, including looking at how Romney's adj. gross income fell eight million dollars between his preliminary return in January and the report that came out today.
On September 22 2012 07:02 coverpunch wrote: But were any of these examples things that they would not have done anyways?
For one, the US was NOT happy with the effort that the rest of NATO put out in Libya (please learn to spell it correctly). If it weren't for the US, NATO would be totally ineffective.
As for Egypt, yes, I guess this gaffe is how you make friends. Straight from the school of Bush.
And Pakistan is closer to one of the places where Obama is spending political capital, not acquiring it.
It's astonishing these examples you come up with. Obama HAS had foreign policy victories and you haven't named any of the big ones. (hint: look at barackobama.com. His points are very different from yours)
A good foreign policy is that governments are persuaded to do things against public support and against their narrow-minded interests for the greater good. You don't have any examples where Obama is doing that.
However, the biggest tragedy isn't that Obama has been lackluster on foreign policy. It's that Romney would obviously be no better. That is worrying for America.
Even Libya was a 'victory' in US terms. In relative terms, a lot of the missions were carried by allies (mainly the UK and France) and the US managed to fly only a small amount of combat missions. Libya was truly multilateral.
Nothing Bush ever did was.
Read this report. Libya was not "truly multilateral" if you're going beyond sentiment.
I'm don't understand why the example of the US influence and role in the military operation in Libya (sorry about that) is a indicative of the US' foreign policy's weakness.
Are you saying a more effective foreign policy is a world where US involvement wasn't necessary?
No unnecessary, but where our allies are carrying a burden that they wouldn't otherwise carry. Having the US do the bulk of the heavy lifting on Libya with our NATO allies cheering us on is NOT a "multilateral effort". The irony here is that Afghanistan WOULD be an example of a proper multilateral effort because our allies are having soldiers killed there and other countries definitely want to leave, but they're being persuaded to stay and stand with the US there. Of course, Bush also had a "good foreign policy" by this measure, but Obama has scored big wins by getting countries that have long talked about leaving to stay, like France and the UK.
I'm shocked that Afghanistan doesn't come up more in Obama's foreign policy talk. He's done really well there, to be honest. The country is rough but that's a rough part of the world. (EDIT: he's not talking about it because of the "green on blue" attacks lately and the US has suffered high casualties that haven't been publicized. But he has done well.)
On September 22 2012 07:02 coverpunch wrote: But were any of these examples things that they would not have done anyways?
For one, the US was NOT happy with the effort that the rest of NATO put out in Libya (please learn to spell it correctly). If it weren't for the US, NATO would be totally ineffective.
As for Egypt, yes, I guess this gaffe is how you make friends. Straight from the school of Bush.
And Pakistan is closer to one of the places where Obama is spending political capital, not acquiring it.
It's astonishing these examples you come up with. Obama HAS had foreign policy victories and you haven't named any of the big ones. (hint: look at barackobama.com. His points are very different from yours)
A good foreign policy is that governments are persuaded to do things against public support and against their narrow-minded interests for the greater good. You don't have any examples where Obama is doing that.
However, the biggest tragedy isn't that Obama has been lackluster on foreign policy. It's that Romney would obviously be no better. That is worrying for America.
Even Libya was a 'victory' in US terms. In relative terms, a lot of the missions were carried by allies (mainly the UK and France) and the US managed to fly only a small amount of combat missions. Libya was truly multilateral.
Nothing Bush ever did was.
Read this report. Libya was not "truly multilateral" if you're going beyond sentiment.
I'm aware of NATO's reliance on US assets, especially when it comes to logistics, but that was the exact same in Iraq.
What's different in Libya is that the majority of combat missions were flown by the UK and France, not by the US. The US provided logistical support and long range tactical strikes, but overall, the other NATO allies contributed much more proportionally than they did in either Iraq or Afghanistan. Libya was NATO as a whole striking at Qaddafi. Iraq and Afghanistan was the US, supported by token western support.
(Add to that the additional factor that NATO countries have generally been more willing to contribute to Afghanistan than to Iraq, because the Afghanistan invasion is considered relatively justified under NATO article V, while the Iraq invason is nothing but giant bullshit and the equivalent of pearl harbor with flagwaving)
On September 22 2012 07:02 coverpunch wrote: But were any of these examples things that they would not have done anyways?
For one, the US was NOT happy with the effort that the rest of NATO put out in Libya (please learn to spell it correctly). If it weren't for the US, NATO would be totally ineffective.
As for Egypt, yes, I guess this gaffe is how you make friends. Straight from the school of Bush.
And Pakistan is closer to one of the places where Obama is spending political capital, not acquiring it.
It's astonishing these examples you come up with. Obama HAS had foreign policy victories and you haven't named any of the big ones. (hint: look at barackobama.com. His points are very different from yours)
A good foreign policy is that governments are persuaded to do things against public support and against their narrow-minded interests for the greater good. You don't have any examples where Obama is doing that.
However, the biggest tragedy isn't that Obama has been lackluster on foreign policy. It's that Romney would obviously be no better. That is worrying for America.
Even Libya was a 'victory' in US terms. In relative terms, a lot of the missions were carried by allies (mainly the UK and France) and the US managed to fly only a small amount of combat missions. Libya was truly multilateral.
Nothing Bush ever did was.
Read this report. Libya was not "truly multilateral" if you're going beyond sentiment.
I'm don't understand why the example of the US influence and role in the military operation in Libya (sorry about that) is a indicative of the US' foreign policy's weakness.
Are you saying a more effective foreign policy is a world where US involvement wasn't necessary?
No unnecessary, but where our allies are carrying a burden that they wouldn't otherwise carry. Having the US do the bulk of the heavy lifting on Libya with our NATO allies cheering us on is NOT a "multilateral effort". The irony here is that Afghanistan WOULD be an example of a proper multilateral effort because our allies are having soldiers killed there and other countries definitely want to leave, but they're being persuaded to stay and stand with the US there. Of course, Bush also had a "good foreign policy" by this measure, but Obama has scored big wins by getting countries that have long talked about leaving to stay, like France and the UK.
I'm shocked that Afghanistan doesn't come up more in Obama's foreign policy talk. He's done really well there, to be honest. The country is rough but that's a rough part of the world. (EDIT: he's not talking about it because of the "green on blue" attacks lately and the US has suffered high casualties that haven't been publicized. But he has done well.)
Give me a minute to see what France and UK have committed on the ground on Libya. I think you're understating their current involvement.
On September 22 2012 07:14 Saryph wrote: Anyone else look at the returns that were released by the Romney campaign today?
You have to wonder what changes have been made to force such a long delay in releasing them.
Below is a link to a story discussing it, including looking at how Romney's adj. gross income fell eight million dollars between his preliminary return in January and the report that came out today.
US did a fair bit in Libya but it wasn't anywhere near them doing the heavy lifting and NATO nearby cheering them on. Wikipedia has the UK as maybe the biggest military expenditure in the Libyan intervention, and plenty of European allies, especially France, sent troops and ships to the region.
On September 22 2012 07:46 Sanctimonius wrote: US did a fair bit in Libya but it wasn't anywhere near them doing the heavy lifting and NATO nearby cheering them on. Wikipedia has the UK as maybe the biggest military expenditure in the Libyan intervention, and plenty of European allies, especially France, sent troops and ships to the region.
Really glad to see Europe pick up the American slack. Europe is going to have to step up big and much sooner than the rest of us expected after America finally loses superpower status. I wonder who can delay longer- Obama, Romney.
I'm going with Romney.
I was also very surprised to see France step up. They have been....fickle as of late on certain forgein policy issues.
In other news, Gallup showing 47%-47% in their poll and Rasmussen showing 46% Obama and 45% Romney, with "leaners" factored in it comes to 49% Obama to 46% Romney.
France has a close relationship with Northern Africa (read: used to own it, responsible for a lot of the problems there and has a lot of immigration from these regions - yay for an area that isn't the fault of Britain!). But I agree that Europe needs to step up and honestly I feel like European politics is changing in this direction - with the growth of the Euro and the EU France and Germany are in the driving seat for the future of Europe and her policies. In the future the US president will have to deal with a resurgent Europe much more unified than it has been in the past, really since the Romans owned it there hasn't been such a concerted effort in politics in Europe.
xDaunt take note, the President will be dealing with Europe on a much more even footing in a lot of cases, and cannot simply bully his way to getting what he wants. Again, just because you are the biggest kid in the playground doesn't mean you can control it, it just means you have a lot to bring to the table when you want something. Keep in mind that being actually friendly with other countries is a good thing, trying to bully them tends to make them dig in - see French-US relations for the past few decades for a lesson on why that doesn't serve you too well.
On September 22 2012 07:14 Saryph wrote: Anyone else look at the returns that were released by the Romney campaign today?
You have to wonder what changes have been made to force such a long delay in releasing them.
Below is a link to a story discussing it, including looking at how Romney's adj. gross income fell eight million dollars between his preliminary return in January and the report that came out today.
What "changes"? It clearly states in that article:
"There's not necessarily anything unethical about Romney's tax strategy. Former IRS commissioner Fred Goldberg, a Romney supporter, issued a statement on Romney's behalf saying there's nothing in Romney's 2011 return that suggests unusual or evasive tactics. Romney is also a generous sponsor of charities, with more than $4 million in donations last year. That helps lower his tax bill significantly."
In other news, Gallup showing 47%-47% in their poll and Rasmussen showing 46% Obama and 45% Romney, with "leaners" factored in it comes to 49% Obama to 46% Romney.
It's looking closer and closer the more we get to voting day!
Obama will win.
Let's be realistic here. As fun as this whole conversion/disscussion is.
Most Americans arn't smart. Hate to say that but we arn't.
One person says- vote for me and I will Give you 'free stuff' One person says- I will do my best to fix the economy and give you the shot at getting a job.
Who wins?
Take the names and ideology away and it comes down to "What's best for me"
People don't care about http://www.usdebtclock.org/ People don't care if our schools, Reseach Facalities, Military are all in decline.
On September 22 2012 04:02 Gorsameth wrote: [quote]
The rocket shield isnt there to protect nations. Do you really think its going to stop Russia from driving 1000 tanks down the road? Your smarter then this. That "shield' is nothing more then a show of American force against a nation they happend to not like 50 years ago.
Its a comedy show but it basicly shows the correct point
The missile shield isn't going to stop Russia from driving tanks into Poland. It won't even stop Russia from nuking Poland.
What will stop Russia is the US defense treaty that comes with the missile shield.
<-not fully informed on this situation but...
Couldn't that Defense Treaty stand alone, without the missile shield?
Sure, but the US should leverage that treaty and its promise to protect these countries to secure favors such as a location to put an ABM base.
Leveraging the NATO treaty to bully countries into doing what you want. That's going to work out oh so well.
You'd imagine the Bush years would have taught you all something about foreign policy.
There was no bullying involved in the missile shield treaties. Hell, I don't recall seeing any expressions of relief from the leaders of Poland and the Czech Republic about Obama pulling the plug on the project. To the contrary, they have hammered Obama for pulling the rug out from under them.
As for Bush, say whatever you want, but Bush effectively mobilized international support for American interests and got shit done. Like I have turned blue in the face saying, Obama has been a miserable failure in this regard.
George W. Bush presided over the largest attack on American soil since Pearl Harbor, despite the warnings of the CIA and the Clinton Administration against the imminent threat of Al-Qaeda. He then launched a war in Iraq, under false pretenses with spurious intelligence, will minimal international support. After fake-landing on an air craft carrier and declaring premature victory, that war lasted ten years, cost the the US trillions of dollars, thousands of US soldiers lives, and left Iraq in essentially a civil war. Despite destabilizing the region and legalizing torture, he failed to actually kill or capture the leaders of the terrorist group directly responsible for the original attacks.
[xDaunt stands and applauds.] "Yes! Yes! That's what I'm talking about!"
You do realize that you're basically proving my point that Bush got shit done on the international stage, right? You may not agree with all that he did (I don't), but he was able to get a lot of countries to do what he wanted. Hell, he basically made the UK (Blair) his bitch for several years (remember all those comments about Blair being Bush's poodle? I don't think that the relationship was disrespectful like some would have us believe, but the point is salient nonetheless). What has Obama done that is even remotely comparable? Nothing. As pointed out by coverpunch, no one can objectively look at the US standing in the world today and say that it is in a better and more influential place than it was in 2008.
Bush did some serious damage to the UK US relationship which will last a generation. The Iraq war and Blair's betrayal of the British people will not be forgotten quickly. Ask yourself if it was really worth the expenditure of political capital and goodwill?
Everyone's missing the point of my comments. I'm not commenting on whether Bush's policies were good or bad. I'm using Bush as an illustration of what proper foreign policy looks like in terms of bending other nations to your will.
And you're missing the point like a near sighted CEO: achieving short term goals doesn't mean much if you sacrifice all your long term capital.
In other news, Gallup showing 47%-47% in their poll and Rasmussen showing 46% Obama and 45% Romney, with "leaners" factored in it comes to 49% Obama to 46% Romney.
It's looking closer and closer the more we get to voting day!
Obama will win.
Let's be realistic here. As fun as this whole conversion/disscussion is.
Most Americans arn't smart. Hate to say that but we arn't.
One person says- vote for me and I will Give you 'free stuff' One person says- I will do my best to fix the economy and give you the shot at getting a job.
Who wins?
Take the names and ideology away and it comes down to "What's best for me"
People don't care about http://www.usdebtclock.org/ People don't care if our schools, Reseach Facalities, Military are all in decline.
I'm poor and broke, but I'm still not going to vote for somebody for "free stuff" I'm going to vote for the person that isn't going to completely destroy our economy so my kids aren't going to have to pay 10$ for a gallon of milk or loaf of bread.
In other news, Gallup showing 47%-47% in their poll and Rasmussen showing 46% Obama and 45% Romney, with "leaners" factored in it comes to 49% Obama to 46% Romney.
(3) The figures: In 2011, Romney made about $14 million. He paid $2 million in taxes. He gave $4 million to charity. It comes out to an "effective" charity-plus-tax rate of 43%. That's in line with his 20-year average: "Over the entire 20-year period, the total federal and state taxes owed plus the total charitable donations deducted represented 38.49% of total AGI."
That's certainly an interesting way to look at it in terms of paying your "fair share" to society.
In other news, Gallup showing 47%-47% in their poll and Rasmussen showing 46% Obama and 45% Romney, with "leaners" factored in it comes to 49% Obama to 46% Romney.
It's looking closer and closer the more we get to voting day!
Obama will win.
Let's be realistic here. As fun as this whole conversion/disscussion is.
Most Americans arn't smart. Hate to say that but we arn't.
One person says- vote for me and I will Give you 'free stuff' One person says- I will do my best to fix the economy and give you the shot at getting a job.
Who wins?
Take the names and ideology away and it comes down to "What's best for me"
People don't care about http://www.usdebtclock.org/ People don't care if our schools, Reseach Facalities, Military are all in decline.
Challenge to Conservatives: How do you believe Romney is going to fix the economy?
Humor me. I'm one of those guys that still doesn't understand how Romney's plan balances the budget. If anything, I think he will drive America into a deep recession.
The missile shield isn't going to stop Russia from driving tanks into Poland. It won't even stop Russia from nuking Poland.
What will stop Russia is the US defense treaty that comes with the missile shield.
<-not fully informed on this situation but...
Couldn't that Defense Treaty stand alone, without the missile shield?
Sure, but the US should leverage that treaty and its promise to protect these countries to secure favors such as a location to put an ABM base.
Leveraging the NATO treaty to bully countries into doing what you want. That's going to work out oh so well.
You'd imagine the Bush years would have taught you all something about foreign policy.
There was no bullying involved in the missile shield treaties. Hell, I don't recall seeing any expressions of relief from the leaders of Poland and the Czech Republic about Obama pulling the plug on the project. To the contrary, they have hammered Obama for pulling the rug out from under them.
As for Bush, say whatever you want, but Bush effectively mobilized international support for American interests and got shit done. Like I have turned blue in the face saying, Obama has been a miserable failure in this regard.
George W. Bush presided over the largest attack on American soil since Pearl Harbor, despite the warnings of the CIA and the Clinton Administration against the imminent threat of Al-Qaeda. He then launched a war in Iraq, under false pretenses with spurious intelligence, will minimal international support. After fake-landing on an air craft carrier and declaring premature victory, that war lasted ten years, cost the the US trillions of dollars, thousands of US soldiers lives, and left Iraq in essentially a civil war. Despite destabilizing the region and legalizing torture, he failed to actually kill or capture the leaders of the terrorist group directly responsible for the original attacks.
[xDaunt stands and applauds.] "Yes! Yes! That's what I'm talking about!"
You do realize that you're basically proving my point that Bush got shit done on the international stage, right? You may not agree with all that he did (I don't), but he was able to get a lot of countries to do what he wanted. Hell, he basically made the UK (Blair) his bitch for several years (remember all those comments about Blair being Bush's poodle? I don't think that the relationship was disrespectful like some would have us believe, but the point is salient nonetheless). What has Obama done that is even remotely comparable? Nothing. As pointed out by coverpunch, no one can objectively look at the US standing in the world today and say that it is in a better and more influential place than it was in 2008.
Bush did some serious damage to the UK US relationship which will last a generation. The Iraq war and Blair's betrayal of the British people will not be forgotten quickly. Ask yourself if it was really worth the expenditure of political capital and goodwill?
Everyone's missing the point of my comments. I'm not commenting on whether Bush's policies were good or bad. I'm using Bush as an illustration of what proper foreign policy looks like in terms of bending other nations to your will.
And you're missing the point like a near sighted CEO: achieving short term goals doesn't mean much if you sacrifice all your long term capital.
'Proper' foreign policy. That actually made me smile.
Bush acted like the worst of bullies, demanding obeisance from the subjects of the US empire and forcing them to support two illegal wars, while bankrupting his own country. in doing so, he squandered not just your economy but any good-will abroad, making it much more difficult to get any other countries to act in US interests, lend the US money, work with the US in projects in other countries, you name it.
Hell, the Arab Spring is the perfect example for why this is a bad thing. The Arab uprisings remove the pro-US dictators and, with those pesky memories, think for themselves about who they would like to align their countries to - the US with their propping-up of dictators, two illegal wars which killed so many civilians that they didn't bother keeping count, or anyone else like Russia and China who...well, didn't. Frankly I would be surprised if any moved closer to US interests. Which makes it that much more difficult to get them to help against the real threats in the region, like Hezbollah, Hamas or Iran.
Yeah, good will doesn't mean a thing, does it? As long as countries act as US puppets with no will of their own. Except, turns out people do think for themselves, and remember things from more than a few weeks ago. Sucks, doesn't it?
EPT
