Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Debates Forum

Debates Forum

  1. Standard member sh76
    Civis Americanus Sum
    29 Oct '09 17:32
    In the midst of all this criticism about the US dictating to everyone else how it should behave, the Europeans are only too happy to demand US leadership when the going gets tough.

    http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,658037,00.html

    Obama Must Provide Better Leadership on Afghanistan

    Afghanistan and Pakistan are being shaken by attacks, and the Taliban is dictating the course of the war. US President Obama has been silent about the situation for far too long and European countries like Germany and France are correct to demand better American leadership on the issue of Afghanistan.

    -snip-

    For once, this hesitation cannot be attributed to widespread war fatigue in Europe. The mission in Afghanistan is seen as a toxic issue in all Western nations, and every government that has provided troops has come under sharp criticism at home. What the US's NATO allies now find far more irritating is US President Barack Obama's silence on the issue.

    The world has been waiting for clear words from the White House for months. Obama has had government and military analysts studying the military and political situation in the embattled Hindu Kush region since early January. He appointed Richard Holbrooke, probably the US's most effective diplomat in crisis situations, to be his special envoy to the "AfPak" region, he has replaced generals and he has deployed more troops. The answers Obama asked his experts to provide after taking office have been sitting on his desk for a long time. But the conclusions vary. Obama will have to make his own decision, one that will shape his political fate.

    -snip-

    Obama's silence stands in contrast with the impassioned rhetoric that carried him into the White House. He risks squandering the biggest advantage of his term in office: the serious attempt to make an honest assessment of his predecessor's legacy. It also represented a great opportunity to restructure the Atlantic alliance. But why should countries like Germany and France believe the verbose promises of a president who is not even sending a clear message at home, even though he has a majority in both houses of Congress?

    There is no doubt that hardly a day passes in Europe without criticism of US policy. This has become a trans-Atlantic ritual. But despite this ritual, Europeans are still looking for one thing from the White House: leadership.

    We're waiting, Mr. President.



    Of course, if that "leadership" is ever provided, they'll go back to criticizing the US for trying to tell everyone else what to do and imposing its will on the rest of the World.

    <sigh>
  2. Standard member Palynka
    Upward Spiral
    29 Oct '09 17:38
    Originally posted by sh76
    In the midst of all this criticism about the US dictating to everyone else how it should behave, the Europeans are only too happy to demand US leadership when the going gets tough.

    http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,658037,00.html

    [i][b]Obama Must Provide Better Leadership on Afghanistan


    Afghanistan and Pakistan are being shaken by at ...[text shortened]... ll everyone else what to do and imposing its will on the rest of the World.

    <sigh>[/b]
    This about Nato, not about "dictating how everyone else should behave".
  3. Standard member shavixmir
    Guppy poo
    29 Oct '09 17:50 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by sh76
    In the midst of all this criticism about the US dictating to everyone else how it should behave, the Europeans are only too happy to demand US leadership when the going gets tough.

    http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,658037,00.html

    [i][b]Obama Must Provide Better Leadership on Afghanistan


    Afghanistan and Pakistan are being shaken by at ll everyone else what to do and imposing its will on the rest of the World.

    <sigh>[/b]
    [/i]I think we should leave Afghanistan and let the sassenachs and yanks rot to death there.

    ANYTHING they wish to accomplish there would be easier to accomplish through diplomacy. If they want to fight... let them die.
  4. Standard member sh76
    Civis Americanus Sum
    29 Oct '09 18:28 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by shavixmir
    [/i]I think we should leave Afghanistan and let the sassenachs and yanks rot to death there.

    ANYTHING they wish to accomplish there would be easier to accomplish through diplomacy. If they want to fight... let them die.
    Who is "we" and how would "your" leaving cause the "Yanks" to "rot to death" there?
  5. Standard member sh76
    Civis Americanus Sum
    29 Oct '09 18:31
    Originally posted by Palynka
    This about Nato, not about "dictating how everyone else should behave".
    Oh okay; so when the US does something through NATO, it's never criticized?
  6. 29 Oct '09 18:37 / 2 edits
    Originally posted by sh76
    In the midst of all this criticism about the US dictating to everyone else how it should behave, the Europeans are only too happy to demand US leadership when the going gets tough.

    http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,658037,00.html

    [i][b]Obama Must Provide Better Leadership on Afghanistan


    Afghanistan and Pakistan are being shaken by at ll everyone else what to do and imposing its will on the rest of the World.

    <sigh>[/b]
    Trying to please the rest of the world is like living your life to please someone else in your life. The US needs to do what is best for the US just as other countries do what is best for themselves. The fact of the matter is, all these other countries wish to see us succeed and be victorious over the Taliban because of the danger they pose to the rest of the world but they don't have the political gonades to see it throuigh themselves.

    Having said that, the question must be asked, what does "victory" look like? What is the goal? I assume it is to beat back the Taliban and establish some sort of counter government in its place so they can all leave. Of course, it did not work in Vietnam and it still remains to be seen if it will work in Iraq. The bottom line is that in each of the situations you have a "hands off" approach to the enemy at large. For example, in Vietnam you had a limited number of ways you could engage the enemy and could not cross certain borders. The same can also be said for Iraq and Afghanistan. Are wars faught in such a way winable? Heck, we are still in South Korea!! My thought is you either go in and clean house, no matter what that may entail, or you leave them alone.

    As for what the rest of the world thinks of the US, I could care less. In fact, if they don't approve of Obama, perhaps he should return their precious nobel prize. It would be akin to Mohammad Ali throwing his Olympic medal into the river. You should stand on principle, not popular world opinions.
  7. Standard member shavixmir
    Guppy poo
    29 Oct '09 19:25
    Originally posted by sh76
    Who is "we" and how would "your" leaving cause the "Yanks" to "rot to death" there?
    We are every other nation imperialising Afghanistan.
    My leaving and the consequences thereof are none of your business.
  8. 29 Oct '09 19:36
    Originally posted by shavixmir
    [/i]I think we should leave Afghanistan and let the sassenachs and yanks rot to death there.

    ANYTHING they wish to accomplish there would be easier to accomplish through diplomacy. If they want to fight... let them die.
    running away from the problem won't solve it.
  9. Standard member sh76
    Civis Americanus Sum
    29 Oct '09 20:21 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by whodey
    Trying to please the rest of the world is like living your life to please someone else in your life. The US needs to do what is best for the US just as other countries do what is best for themselves. The fact of the matter is, all these other countries wish to see us succeed and be victorious over the Taliban because of the danger they pose to the rest of t Olympic medal into the river. You should stand on principle, not popular world opinions.
    I agree on Afghanistan. I saw withdraw the ground troops and if the Taliban makes a nuisance of themselves, pummel them from the air. There doesn't really seem to be much point in just staying there forever. We've avenged 9/11 a couple of hundred times over.

    But I do think it's extremely hypocritical for some Europeans to whine about American dominance and imperialism and then whine that the US is not providing enough leadership.
  10. 29 Oct '09 21:02 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by sh76
    [b]I agree on Afghanistan. I saw withdraw the ground troops and if the Taliban makes a nuisance of themselves, pummel them from the air. There doesn't really seem to be much point in just staying there forever. We've avenged 9/11 a couple of hundred times over.
    Lets forget about the Europeans a second. I don't think the goal for the US is to avenge 9/11, rather, the goal is to make sure one does not happen again. After all, before 9/11 Afghanistan became a safe haven for terrorists in which to carry out the plot of 9/11. Now to take them out completly, would mean to not only send more ground troops into Afghanistan, it would mean going into Pakistan and possibly Iran. I simlpy don't think this is ever going to happen, thus, we will be at war with these people indefinatly. So the question is, what is both the safest and most cost effective way to keep them at bay? The main concern that I have about pulling out is that it will not only replant the safe haven for terrorists which could potentially create another 9/11, but it will embolden them as standing up against yet another super power and coming away "victorious".

    Make no mistake, the goal of the Taliban in life is to be a nuisance till the day they die. We should just accept this and deal with them accordingly. Perhaps the best method is simply to continue flying unmanned drones indefinately over Afghanistan.
  11. Standard member Bosse de Nage
    Zellulärer Automat
    29 Oct '09 22:14
    Originally posted by sh76

    But I do think it's extremely hypocritical for some Europeans to whine about American dominance and imperialism and then whine that the US is not providing enough leadership.
    'Hypocritical' ... 'whine' ... Please.

    Can you read? Europe is asking that Obama be a better leader, which seems quite reasonable, given that he seems to be doing very little to solve the Afghanistan nightmare.
  12. Standard member sh76
    Civis Americanus Sum
    29 Oct '09 22:51 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
    'Hypocritical' ... 'whine' ... Please.

    Can you read? Europe is asking that Obama be a better leader, which seems quite reasonable, given that he seems to be doing very little to solve the Afghanistan nightmare.
    Yes; it's reasonable.

    It is unreasonable for the same people to also assert that the US should mind its own business in World affairs.

    Oh; and yes, I can read. Thanks for asking.
  13. Standard member Palynka
    Upward Spiral
    29 Oct '09 23:07
    Originally posted by sh76
    Oh okay; so when the US does something through NATO, it's never criticized?
    How is that relevant? Nobody is asking Obama for more interventions. They're asking him to finish the mess they started and for which they requested help from their Nato allies.
  14. 30 Oct '09 00:13 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by sh76
    Yes; it's reasonable.

    It is unreasonable for the same people to also assert that the US should mind its own business in World affairs.

    Oh; and yes, I can read. Thanks for asking.
    It's maybe some parts of the US who are whining because they just cannot accept any form of criticism whatsoever of the precious US foreign policy.

    The reason Europe is asking for better leadership from Obama is precisely because the US doesn't mind its own business in world affairs.

    It is reasonable for those other powers involved in Afghanistan to criticise US leadership there because all the troops there are under US leadership and there doesn't seem to be any end to the war in sight and also because they have soldiers there who are fighting and dying under US leadership. If the US wants help from other countries then perhaps it should get its act together. Or maybe pass the leadership on to someone who actually knows what he is doing.

    Nothing unreasonable about that.
  15. Subscriber kmax87
    You've got Kevin
    30 Oct '09 00:15
    Originally posted by whodey
    Trying to please the rest of the world is like living your life to please someone else in your life. The US needs to do what is best for the US just as other countries do what is best for themselves.
    Spoken with all the sincere bluster worthy of none better than the spawn of Satan.

    You make Daleks proud............EXTERMINATE EXTERMINATE..............