Mr Coeur de Lion Posted January 12, 2011 Share Posted January 12, 2011 [quote user="WJT"]It is strange how Obama has taken an extreme polar opposite of Bush but then again it could be said that if Royal was the current leader of France versus Sarkozy it would be the same. [/quote]Not really. Bush was a republican and Obama is a democrat. As opposite as Tory and Labour. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PaulT Posted January 12, 2011 Share Posted January 12, 2011 [quote user="WJT"]It is a shame that the field for running for president is so open in America and just about anyone can run [/quote]Yes, subject to having a few zillion dollars Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pachapapa Posted January 12, 2011 Share Posted January 12, 2011 [quote user="Thibault"][quote user="pachapapa"] [quote user="Cathy"]I am quite incensed by Obama's remarks, which are so untrue. Think Nato? Think Iraq? I would be particularly angry if I was a mother of a British soldier. It really is time to pull out our troops from Afghanistan.[/quote]Pulling the troops out of Afghanistan could be a productive measure.The latest US diplomatic documents released by Wikileaks contain harsh criticism of the UK military effort in Afghanistan from 2007 to 2009.The cables say US officials and Afghan President Hamid Karzai believed UK forces were not up to the task of securing Helmand province on their own.The president reportedly said he was relieved when US Marines were sent to the province.The details have been published in the Guardian newspaper.In one cable, a US general, Dan McNeill, was said to be “particularly dismayed by the British effort” in fighting the drugs trade in Afghanistan.He is quoted as saying that British forces had “made a mess” of counter-narcotics operations in Helmand by employing the “wrong” tactics.http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/UK-News/WikiLeaks-Afghan-Criticism-Of-UK-Military-Revealed-In-Leaked-Cables/Article/201012115845510[/quote] Well there was an interesting report in the paper a week or so ago which said that the US military had suffered heavier losses in Helmand than the British in a similar period of time and that US generals were beginning to think that perhaps the British had not been so "weak" and "cowardly" as previously thought. The US, it seems, abandoned the UK strategy of capturing and holding areas in a circle around the main town (whose name for the moment escapes me) to protect the citizens of that town and allow "normal" life to continue and, as a result, the town was now coming under attack by the Taliban and "normal" life was becoming impossible again.The tone of the article seemed to imply that perhaps the US had been rather too harsh in its assessment of the British effort. [/quote]The post to which you reply referred to diplomatic messages rather than a newspaper that you have forgotten its name, oh my dawg!You consider apparently the junk for the daily rag as reflecting the truth, oh my other dawg! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clarkkent Posted January 12, 2011 Share Posted January 12, 2011 [quote user="Mr Coeur de Lion"][quote user="WJT"]It is strange how Obama has taken an extreme polar opposite of Bush but then again it could be said that if Royal was the current leader of France versus Sarkozy it would be the same. [/quote]Not really. Bush was a republican and Obama is a democrat. As opposite as Tory and Labour.[/quote]It's interesting that you should say that, Richard. Is this a view you have come to hold since you arrived in The Land of the Free?I think that the distinction you state is one which is popular in Europe, but not as clear cut in the USA. I think that there is currently a "liberal" / "conservative" divide being portrayed in the USA at the moment particularly over the provision of health care and government spending, with the Tea Party movement condemning everything it dislikes as neo- crypto- or pseudo-communist, and the Tea Party exists at the right extreme of the Republican Party. However, there are plenty of right-wing Democrats and left-wing Republicans - and always have been. If you scratch deeply enough both parties can be seen to be divided by a single philosophy - Americanism.Part of Obama's problem is that he is stuck in a job which is impossible to do - he may be Head of State but he is also the Executive and hamstrung by a constitution which enforces total segregation between the Executive, the Legislature and the Judiciary. It was the Founding Fathers' wish to live in an environment where they would be little troubled by any government activity and so provided themselves with a constitution which ensured that the desired state in any situation would be stalemate. Power and authority are pushed down to the lowest effective government level (hence elections for the town dog catcher) and the Federal Government is left doing only the things which the Constitution allows - external affairs and the currency. Presidents, during their first term of office are in a state of permanent campaigniong for the chance to have a second term of office.Hence Obama seeks any image building opportunity he can find - which includes being pally with foreign visitors. His villification of BP (which he called British Petroleum) is a case in point.The USA sometimes strikes me as being a third world country inside a first world skin. Despite having (by world standards) an excellent education system over 50% of Americans believe the world is 6,000 years old. In many respects it is as theocratic a country as Iran - any politician who denies the existence of God is doomed to non-election. And the (not quite accurate) constitutional right to bear arms ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thibault Posted January 12, 2011 Share Posted January 12, 2011 PapachapaI haven't forgotten the name of the newspaper - I didn't mention it. I said I had forgotten the name of the town the UK troops were protecting and for which the US are now responsible.You seem to think that any newspaper is incapable of writing well-informed stuff, yet the gossipy style of diplomatic messages are bound to be gospel.You may like to reflect on the fact that the diplomatic messages are some months/years old, whereas the US military opinion quoted in the newspaper reflected the views of the US AFTER they had taken control of the area and perhaps began to realise what the British troops had been trying to achieve. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WJT Posted January 12, 2011 Share Posted January 12, 2011 [quote user="Mr Coeur de Lion"][quote user="WJT"]It is strange how Obama has taken an extreme polar opposite of Bush but then again it could be said that if Royal was the current leader of France versus Sarkozy it would be the same. [/quote]Not really. Bush was a republican and Obama is a democrat. As opposite as Tory and Labour.[/quote] Yes but in my opinion polar opposite one being on the hard left and the other, hard right of the party. There are some Republicans and Democrats that both lean toward the middle. Just like in the UK.In regards to funds, anyone can run and raise funds but sadly having special interest groups behind them helps but hopefully is beginning to change. For example Obamas' campaign was one of the first and largest internet campaign's in raising funds for his election. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gluestick Posted January 12, 2011 Share Posted January 12, 2011 [quote user="WJT"][quote user="Gluestick"][quote user="Cathy"]Do you think that the average French person on the equivalent of the Clapham Omnibus would think that he/she has a special relationship with the US?[/quote]The close French friends with whom I discuss politics (both recently retired lecturers) considered G W Bush was a "Cowboy": and Obama is a clown.They have little time for American imperialism, arrogance and constant destabilising interference in global affairs.[/quote] Thats a shame because I hear they quite like your "friends" [:D]Sadly the person in charge seems to lead the way. It is strange how Obama has taken an extreme polar opposite of Bush but then again it could be said that if Royal was the current leader of France versus Sarkozy it would be the same. I personally don't judge all of the people of France on the beliefs and policy of that particular leader at the time. There are some that support and have the exact same views and some that don't. But then again I do get out some.[:)]It is a shame that the field for running for president is so open in America and just about anyone can run versus having the person put up for election chosen by a few. There are definitely drawbacks to both in my opinion but perhaps with a little less democracy there would be less Bozos running. But then again there are many that think that of Sarkozy already, not to mention Nick Clegg.Shame some that are so detested don't have the time to respond to such clever anti-American pundits that appear to have a lot of time to express such extreme views and not to mention very clever in the know friends on this forum. Perhaps a personal invitation by some of those very clever friends may do the trick. I will watch with baited breath. [:)][/quote]Sadly WJT, I am not clever enough to fully understand your post.It seems to conflate and obfuscate various disparate issues.For what is worth, in terms of perspective, seems to me few of the root and branch French have any time for the man they disparagingly call M. le President Bling Bling: nor for Ségolène Royale: who demonstrated her astounding knowledge of foreign affairs and geography in the run up to the last presidential election: a similiar case to Sarah Palin.Obama distinguished himself in my book, by waxing lyrical about Indonesia: not the country most Indonesians live in.He next uttered moronic comments about not importing from China and manufacturing in continental USA.Finally, he praised US forces in Afghanistan, saying how things were dramatically improved: at the very time the Pentagon issued wholly contrarian statistics!See here:Sadly, a nation state tends to be judged, abroad, by its collective acts and results: not on the individual.The present global financial and monetary crisis has not endeared America to many outside its shores. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PaulT Posted January 13, 2011 Share Posted January 13, 2011 I always get the sense that the US is not really interested in any other country than the US.I belong to a forum for a British car that was mainly exported to the US hence the members are mainly US citizens. In one of the recent 'off topic' threads they are saying that they should only buy US goods (they have a UK car(s) admittedly most as a hobby) complaining that Germany is now a major manufacturer whereas the US was.By the same token they believe that every country should buy American goods.From US friends I always got the impression that the US was great and life was wonderful (except when you stray in to the slum areas where people cannot afford health insurance so if they are ill tough).Think the US sees itself as the gang leader in the playground and will let others join the gang when it suits them and kicks them out when it does not. Did not Blair do this when Bush was the gang leader? Blair went out of his way to please him - lets put some WMDs in the report and say they can be used within 45 minutes 'haven't I done well Bushy'.And do we want a special relationship with the US? What has it got us - embroilled in Iraq and Afghanistan. We saw the plaaing that Bush had 'budle in there, kick out Hussain and then the Iraqis will kiss our feet so we do not need to make any plans for the future'. And if the Russians could not succeed in Afghanistan what chance the US and her allies - as is being proved none.Perhaps the UK needs to think of whether it should be making a fool of itself by staring in to Obamas eyes and asking if he loves us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Piperade Posted January 13, 2011 Share Posted January 13, 2011 There's an old maxim in politics (first attributed to Palmerston) that nations don't have friends, they have interests.I find it slightly embarrassing that our politicos go over there convinced that they're visiting their 'bezzie mate'..Simon summed it up neatly on P2.. P Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clarkkent Posted January 14, 2011 Share Posted January 14, 2011 [quote user="Gluestick"]Obama distinguished himself in my book, by waxing lyrical about Indonesia: not the country most Indonesians live in.[/quote]He spent much of his childhood in Indonesia and is fluent in the local language. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gluestick Posted January 14, 2011 Share Posted January 14, 2011 [quote user="Clarkkent"][quote user="Gluestick"]Obama distinguished himself in my book, by waxing lyrical about Indonesia: not the country most Indonesians live in.[/quote]He spent much of his childhood in Indonesia and is fluent in the local language.[/quote]Yes; I was fully aware of this, CK.In which case he ought to have more sense than to extol the wonders of the country, its fair and just legal system and religious tolerance.Within one week either side of Obama's proclamation, Muslims were attacking Christians and Christian churches: again.Yet Obama waxed lyrical about the country's religious tolerance etc.I base my comments upon earlier commercial experience of the country and trade therewith and some little knowledge of both Suharto's and Sukarno's regimes: and more interestingly, considerable time spent in France late Summer enjoying the company of a dear English friend who is a Marine Ecologist who has lived and worked in Indonesia now for some 25 years: she was "home" on furlough, staying with her mother. We spent much time together chatting about various matters and the country she lives and works in was nothing like the Shangri-La described by Obama. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quillan Posted January 14, 2011 Share Posted January 14, 2011 Good grief Gluey your be saying next that all politicians in general have no understanding about real life when of course we know they do. I mean they go to university to become professional politicians and learn about the poor and middle class's not to mention how to fiddle the odd expense or two. [;-)] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gluestick Posted January 14, 2011 Share Posted January 14, 2011 Silly of me, I know, Q![:D]Recently, for something I am writing, in prep. I had to check into George Osborne's credibility and more critically, suitability and competence to be Chancellor of the Exchequer with Britain facing such horrendous problems vis a vis Deficit and Public Debt.I was not assured to discover his career included a spell working for the NHS recording deaths in North London, before joining Selfridges for a short spell: then moving over to Tory HQ as a "Researcher": prior to strapping on his political parachute and being dropped into a safe seat. Rather on par with Alistair Darling: a parochial local solicitor placed in charge of a top ten global economy.Labour's shadow Chancellor was a postman.............And we wonder why the World's in such a bloody mess! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clarkkent Posted January 14, 2011 Share Posted January 14, 2011 But Gluey, don't you realise that if politicians had any expertise then the electorate wouldn't trust them? Politicians are all the Common Man having done ordinary, everyday jobs like barrister, company director, polytechnic politics lecturer and party head office researcher. They rely on the expertise of senior civil servants who, having studied Latin and Greek at Oxbridge, are the best qualified people to advise them on the merits of nuclear reactors, health expenditure priorities and economic reality. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gluestick Posted January 14, 2011 Share Posted January 14, 2011 CK:You're even more cynical than I!Love it![:D] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quillan Posted January 14, 2011 Share Posted January 14, 2011 Gluey I hear this year they are adding ventriloquism to the course, that way we won't be able to tell when their lying. [I] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hoddy Posted January 14, 2011 Share Posted January 14, 2011 Soon after the coalition was formed, I looked up all the main members of it. The great majority of them are millionaires in their own right, went to exclusive public schools and studied, mostly for a degree in politics, philosophy and economics, at either Oxford or Cambridge. That is why they are able to offer us such a breadth of experience.Hoddy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gluestick Posted January 14, 2011 Share Posted January 14, 2011 [quote user="Quillan"]Gluey I hear this year they are adding ventriloquism to the course, that way we won't be able to tell when their lying. [I][/quote][:D] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Russethouse Posted January 14, 2011 Share Posted January 14, 2011 [quote user="Hoddy"]Soon after the coalition was formed, I looked up all the main members of it. The great majority of them are millionaires in their own right, went to exclusive public schools and studied, mostly for a degree in politics, philosophy and economics, at either Oxford or Cambridge. That is why they are able to offer us such a breadth of experience. Hoddy[/quote] And Blair, Brown, Milliband, Darling etc ?They talk a good talk.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quillan Posted January 14, 2011 Share Posted January 14, 2011 [quote user="Hoddy"]Soon after the coalition was formed, I looked up all the main members of it. The great majority of them are millionaires in their own right, went to exclusive public schools and studied, mostly for a degree in politics, philosophy and economics, at either Oxford or Cambridge. That is why they are able to offer us such a breadth of experience. Hoddy[/quote]I think the point is Hoddy that's all well and good but what 'real world' experience have they had. More importantly what 'connection' do they have with the people and in particular, as I have said before, their hopes, aspirations and expectations. When do they sit and listen (or just plain listen) to the people rather than take the attitude of that having gone to university and studied the subjects you have given that they know best and the people should just shut up and do as they are told. This is the attitude of all the 'major' parties these days and like many I am fed up with being talked down to, taken for a fool and generally lied too which is my secondary reason for leaving the UK. I also get really angry when I read UK newspapers and what goes on there, not always the big things but the day to day things and to think I was so stupid as to give so many years of my life to the country, willing to even die for it and for what? It is no longer a country of mine and whilst I may have to visit it (only if I can't possibly avoid it) I have no intention of going back there to live.That then takes us back to the original subject and who is the most stupid, I think it's the UK because as said the US does not have any interest other than it's own at heart and I would most strongly recommend to France that it totally ignores this (US) odious, corrupt and warmongering country especially after the way it has treated France in the past. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hoddy Posted January 14, 2011 Share Posted January 14, 2011 Sorry Q, you missed my point. I was being ironic because their experience of the world is so limited. In fact a man of this kind, belonging to a party I would normally vote for, stood in my constituency and I couldn't bring myself to vote for him. I think we need far fewer 'career' politicians and what we really need are people who have made their own way in the world. The trouble is that the politicians we have at the moment can't really work with people from outside the Westminster village because they are much more likely to tell an inconvenient truth. Hoddy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gluestick Posted January 14, 2011 Share Posted January 14, 2011 [quote user="Hoddy"]Sorry Q, you missed my point. I was being ironic because their experience of the world is so limited. In fact a man of this kind, belonging to a party I would normally vote for, stood in my constituency and I couldn't bring myself to vote for him. I think we need far fewer 'career' politicians and what we really need are people who have made their own way in the world. The trouble is that the politicians we have at the moment can't really work with people from outside the Westminster village because they are much more likely to tell an inconvenient truth. Hoddy[/quote]For me, Hoddy, the problem is much simpler.If you look at the history of Britain's PMs and senior cabinet figures, then you quickly see how the Oxbridge Mafia have dominated British politics since the year dot.Perhaps worse, Whitehall and the "Corridors of Power" and "Mandarins", to quote C P Snow, are almost exclusively, again, members of the same Mafia. At senior and executive level, Whitehall suffers a rash of 'em!Perhaps these intellectual genii's greatest claim to fame is how they have presided over and engineered Britains descent from a once great and respected global power to a sort of bankrupt banana republic: with the masquerade of monarchy and the upper house stuffed full of worthless career politicians, enobled for their "Services to politics"!Don't make me larf!It's Friday. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pachapapa Posted January 14, 2011 Share Posted January 14, 2011 For once Gluey I absolutely agree with you. Just as well you posted as after reading Hoddy's contribution as I stopped for supper I returned to blast him into outer space....now completely deflated with a blank mind....what can I say....Hoddy doesn't do irony very well.[:)] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hoddy Posted January 14, 2011 Share Posted January 14, 2011 "Hoddy doesn't do irony very well."Clearly not. I was trying to make it plain that I feel little more than contempt for most of them. Hoddy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pachapapa Posted January 14, 2011 Share Posted January 14, 2011 How is this for irony!If Martin Luther King was alive today then he would be FOR the war in Iraq and Afghanistan.http://www.defense.gov/News/NewsArticle.aspx?ID=62448 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now