Obama's "Apology Tours"

Originally posted by sh76
Instead of calling it an "apology tour," maybe we can call it a "confessing that the US has done some bad stuff" tour, and then we can stop arguing about semantics and start discussing substance.

I will say that it does make me wince a little when the President tells European audiences that the US has been so dismissive and derisive towards them, when:

1) ...[text shortened]... ther and contribute their share of geopolitical leadership (and money, for that matter).

In the context of every example Obama is simply pointing out where both sides have contributed to the strained relationship between the US and our European counterparts. I see absolutely nothing wrong with this

Who cares whether European leaders were the first to admit any fault? The fact that Obama has taken that step shows both, strength and humility - both of which are virtues worthy of international leadership.

Originally posted by utherpendragon
FMF has a new lap dog! LOL 🙂
Shine my boots Boy!

Wow. I applaud the depth and insight you bring to the conversation.

Originally posted by sh76
Actually, no leadership IS disastrous. When the League of Nations fell apart, well, we know what happened.

If Europeans want to complain about the US' policies, fine. But they shouldn't just fail to exercise any of their own leadership. There are world issues that require direction. Dealing with Iran's nuclear ambitions; dealing with NK, trying to mediate th t is outwith their own borders" is either a bad joke or ignorant xenophobic hateful BS.

Yeah, no leadership can be disastrous but disastrous leadership IS disastrous. Look at what happened under dubya - an illegal war, an unwinnable war and the world on the brink of economic collapse. Think I'd prefer the no leadership option.

It is also very dificult for European countries to exercise leadership when they don't really get a chance to because the most powerful country in the world always stands in their way when these European countries disagree with it. Consider the European countries who did not want to contribute to the invasion of Iraq. They were showing leadership values but were overridden and condemned by a lying US administration who invaded anyway.

What about the recent economic crisis where most European countries obviously recognise that greater regulation is needed and a more socialist (there's that big scary word again, you better run!) political agenda should be pursued. Will America comply with these wishes?

The problem isn't Europe's unwillingness to lead, it is America's unwillingness to follow. Do you honestly think that America, being the most powerful nation on the planet, which sets most of the rules for most of the games to ensure that America will always remain on top, will then play by rules set up by other countries to allow a fairer distribution of wealth and power? I don't think so somehow.

So maybe you should stop you're whining and have a look in the mirror.

Originally posted by The Snapper
Yeah, no leadership can be disastrous but disastrous leadership IS disastrous. Look at what happened under dubya - an illegal war, an unwinnable war and the world on the brink of economic collapse. Think I'd prefer the no leadership option.

It is also very dificult for European countries to exercise leadership when they don't really get a chance to be nk so somehow.

So maybe you should stop you're whining and have a look in the mirror.

===It is also very dificult for European countries to exercise leadership when they don't really get a chance to because the most powerful country in the world always stands in their way when these European countries disagree with it. Consider the European countries who did not want to contribute to the invasion of Iraq. They were showing leadership values but were overridden and condemned by a lying US administration who invaded anyway.===

What makes the US the most powerful country in the World is primarily, Europe's inability to act together. To take your example, regarding the war in Iraq. The UK sent soldiers but have basically pulled them out. Spain sent soldiers but pulled them out when AQ hit them. Germany didn't send soldiers but didn't really oppose the war vocally. France opposed the war. Etc. etc. etc. If the countries of the EU acted in concert, the EU would be as powerful as the US, if not more so. Don't worry though, I won't hold my breath for that to happen.


===What about the recent economic crisis where most European countries obviously recognise that greater regulation is needed and a more socialist (there's that big scary word again, you better run!) political agenda should be pursued. Will America comply with these wishes?===

The Europeans are free to do whatever the heck they want in their own economies. the US will do what it wants to do. Leadership does not mean telling other countries what to do with their economies. Will the US comply with their wishes in terms of how they run their own economies? Sure, why not? That has nothing to do with geopolitical leadership anyway.

===The problem isn't Europe's unwillingness to lead, it is America's unwillingness to follow. Do you honestly think that America, being the most powerful nation on the planet, which sets most of the rules for most of the games to ensure that America will always remain on top, will then play by rules set up by other countries to allow a fairer distribution of wealth and power? I don't think so somehow. ===

I have no idea what you mean by "remaining on top." If you'd care to define that term maybe I can understand what it is you're trying to say.

===So maybe you should stop you're whining and have a look in the mirror.===

Not worth a comment.

Originally posted by sh76
===It is also very dificult for European countries to exercise leadership when they don't really get a chance to because the most powerful country in the world always stands in their way when these European countries disagree with it. Consider the European countries who did not want to contribute to the invasion of Iraq. They were showing leadership values but ...[text shortened]... ld stop you're whining and have a look in the mirror.===

Not worth a comment.

No, what makes America the most powerful country in the world is the fact that Europe was decimated after WWII.

The fact that the world trading currency is the US dollar and that America is the largest consumer on the planet means that US economic policy affects most other countries in the world. The US (through the conditionalities attached to foreign aid from the government, the World Bank and the IMF) does tell other countries what to do with their economies. And do you really think that this has nothing to do with geopolitical leadership?

So, you don't know what 'remaining on top means'? Really?

And it is you who was complaining about Europeans 'whining' when, in fact, it was your good self 'whining' about Europeans. Your main complaint pretends to be about European lack of leadership but when European countries do try to show leadership by, for example, not supporting the invasion of Iraq, they get ostracised by the US ('freedom fries' anyone?). So, the reality is that it is not European lack of leadership which is your problem, but the fact that sometimes European countries have the temerity to actually disagree with the mighty US.

Originally posted by The Snapper
No, what makes America the most powerful country in the world is the fact that Europe was decimated after WWII.

The fact that the world trading currency is the US dollar and that America is the largest consumer on the planet means that US economic policy affects most other countries in the world. The US (through the conditionalities attached to foreig sometimes European countries have the temerity to actually disagree with the mighty US.

Oh; for crying out loud. You're complaining about trivial nonsense like "freedom fries" when Chirac impliedly threatened to punish Eastern European countries for supporting the Iraq war?

If the US gives foreign aid, then it can attach any strings it likes to that aid. If the EU wants to control policy, let's see it pony up the dough necessary to give foreign aid, then it can attach whatever strings it likes.

The fact that the US is the largest consumer has nothing to do with leadership. It is simply a reality. If you don't like that, then start consuming more.

The point is that on the one hand, you want the US to assume the responsibilities of World leadership while at the same time you want to placidly wag your finger at the US when you disagree with its actions.

WWII ended in 1945. Just how long does Europe need to get its act together? A century? 2 centuries?

Originally posted by sh76
Oh; for crying out loud. You're complaining about trivial nonsense like "freedom fries" when Chirac impliedly threatened to punish Eastern European countries for supporting the Iraq war?

If the US gives foreign aid, then it can attach any strings it likes to that aid. If the EU wants to control policy, let's see it pony up the dough necessary to give foreign ...[text shortened]... ed in 1945. Just how long does Europe need to get its act together? A century? 2 centuries?

Yeah, a century or two seems about right. I mean the US has had about 80 odd years of global domianance and it still can't get it right.

And where did I say that I wanted 'the US to assume the responsibilities of world leadership'? You're putting words in my mouth. The opposite , in fact, is true. I thnk most of the world would welcome the US butting out of everyone else's affairs.

Originally posted by The Snapper
Yeah, a century or two seems about right. I mean the US has had about 80 odd years of global domianance and it still can't get it right.

And where did I say that I wanted 'the US to assume the responsibilities of world leadership'? You're putting words in my mouth. The opposite , in fact, is true. I thnk most of the world would welcome the US butting out of everyone else's affairs.

You said "The fact that the world trading currency is the US dollar and that America is the largest consumer on the planet means that US economic policy affects most other countries in the world." I took that to mean that the US has a responsibility to conduct its own domestic policy in a manner that benefits the rest of the World. If you didn't mean that, then fine... just say so.

In any case, there is nothing inherently stopping the EU from assuming at least co-world leadership. The EU economy is larger than the US economy and all I hear on this board in any case is about how wonderful the European system is and how much better your society is. So, you know what? Increase your defense spending. Increase your foreign aid. You try paying for all the corrupt nonsense orchestrated by the UN and then, tada, you'll have this panacea of European hegemony that you seem to so desire.

I would also welcome the US butting out of your affairs. When problems crop up around the World, you handle them. Then come back to me and tell me how easy it is.

Originally posted by sh76
You said "The fact that the world trading currency is the US dollar and that America is the largest consumer on the planet means that US economic policy affects most other countries in the world." I took that to mean that the US has a responsibility to conduct its own domestic policy in a manner that benefits the rest of the World. If you didn't mean that, then ...[text shortened]... crop up around the World, you handle them. Then come back to me and tell me how easy it is.

I said that because that's the way the world works. I don't find it particularly desirable, but as I said before, because the US is so powerful, it makes the rules of the game which the rest of us have to abide by.

I have no problem with the US looking out for no.1, every nation does so (although some do feel more of a social responsibility to those less fortunate than themselves). My problem is that the US looks after itself first and foremost but then tries to pass this off as being benficial to every other nation on the planet and expects every other nation to somehow be eternally grateful. That is the impression I get, otherwise why is the US so sensitive to any criticism?

I have never said that the European system is wonderful, it just seems better than others. Also, I never said that I desire hegemony for European countries. Where did you get that from? Again, the opposite is true. I think that Europe has learnt its lesson, as far as empires go, with the disastrous effects of their colonial exploits on the developing world. We now know not to stick our noses into other peoples' affairs, a lesson the US is perhaps learning right now.

I have also never said that I think solving the world's problems is easy, but why do Americans think it is their responsibility to do so? If you hate doing it so much, then why do you do it? You do it because it is in the US' best interests to do it. The US track record here is pretty abysmal, so why do you think that it should be above criticism? I will happily criticise the European empires for doing the same thing (or actually a worse job) when they existed. A criticism of US foreign policy is not a criticism of America or the American people. I have visited the US several times and found it to be a wonderful place full of decent, likeable people. But that doesn't mean that you shouldn't be able to take criticism or responsibility for when you muck up.

Originally posted by The Snapper
I said that because that's the way the world works. I don't find it particularly desirable, but as I said before, because the US is so powerful, it makes the rules of the game which the rest of us have to abide by.

I have no problem with the US looking out for no.1, every nation does so (although some do feel more of a social responsibility to those l ...[text shortened]... mean that you shouldn't be able to take criticism or responsibility for when you muck up.

So, what exactly are you advocating? A complete power vacuum where no one asserts leadership in dealing with international problems?

Originally posted by sh76
So, what exactly are you advocating? A complete power vacuum where no one asserts leadership in dealing with international problems?

Perhaps if the US allowed the UN to be more independent and to have a bit more bite. Apart from that, I don't really know. But I do know that the current situation doesn't appear to be working too well. As I said, two miserable wars and the greatest economic crisis for generations. Happy days, eh?

Originally posted by The Snapper
Perhaps if the US allowed the UN to be more independent and to have a bit more bite. Apart from that, I don't really know. But I do know that the current situation doesn't appear to be working too well. As I said, two miserable wars and the greatest economic crisis for generations. Happy days, eh?

Complaining about how things are is always easy. But things could be a heck of a lot worse than they are now.

Though I'm sure many people will not like to acknowledge it, the situation in Iraq has stabilized and can hardly even be referred to as a "war" right now, though it remains volatile of course.

Afghanistan may be over and done with in a matter of months if Obama decides to withdraw the ground troops, as he might. If he doesn't, it's the kind of "miserable war" that will hardly be noticed by everyone outside of Afghanistan, which has been at war (more or less) for decades in any case.

The western World (and Eastern World for that matter) is fundamentally at peace, the likes of which were extremely rare before the onset of the Pax Americana.

The "greatest economic crisis for generations" amounts to an ebbing cyclical recession that, by most accounts, will be over, done with and forgotten within the next couple of years.

Western aid flowing to Africa and other parts of the developing World are at an all time high.

Happy times, indeed, especially relative to all other times in the history of mankind.

You've already conceded that Europe was even worse at operating as World Hegemon. The only time we had a true vacuum in that department was after the League of Nations fell apart... and how did that work out?

I think we could do materially worse than having the US shoulder the responsibility of leadership.

In any case, it's not up to the US to "allow" the UN to be anything. Why do people use the US as an excuse all the time for anything that doesn't work out? "Oh well, we would have done something good; but the big bad US didn't allow it." Maybe the UN is a powerless absurdity because the Europeans and Asians also bungled its creation, charter and allocation of power. But it's more convenient to simply blame, the US, isn't it?

Originally posted by sh76
Complaining about how things are is always easy. But things could be a heck of a lot worse than they are now.

Though I'm sure many people will not like to acknowledge it, the situation in Iraq has stabilized and can hardly even be referred to as a "war" right now, though it remains volatile of course.

Afghanistan may be over and done with in a matter of m ...[text shortened]... ocation of power. But it's more convenient to simply blame, the US, isn't it?

'Complaining about how things are is always easy.'

That is correct.
The difference is that I was complaining about two miserable wars, the economic crisis, the uneven distribution of power and wealth in the world. You were complaining about America not being liked as much as you think it should be.
Notice a difference here?

I am also surprised at how flippant you can be about these current situations considering the amount of deaths which have been racked up. I'm pretty sure all the Iraqi, Afghani, American and coalition families who have lost loved ones won't be forgetting these wars any time soon.

'The western World (and Eastern World for that matter) is fundamentally at peace, the likes of which were extremely rare before the onset of the Pax Americana.'

I think it is arguable whether or not East and West are at peace. The West is involved in the two wars previously mentioned (with more to come I am sure) and there is a lot of internal conflict in the East - China (Tibet, Uighurs), Burma, Sri Lanka, Pakistan, Phillippines. Maybe South America would have been a better example, but of course there is a lot of socialism down there and we wouldn't want to go praising that now would we?. And I see from your Pax Americana reference that you think America should get all the credit for any peace in the world. But of course shouldn't take any responsibility for any conflict in the world. America was greatly responsible for bringing about peace in Europe, but it didn't do so well in South East Asia or South America.

You are also dismissive of the economic crisis. Again, perhaps it hasn't affected your good self too much, but I'm sure the extra millions around the world who were thrown into poverty as a direct result of greedy incompetents would tend to disagree with you there.

'You've already conceded that Europe was even worse at operating as World Hegemon.'

I haven't conceded anything! I'm not involved in a Europe v America contest. There is nothing to concede. I think it is obvious that the European empires (especially the British empire), while being hugely beneficial to their own countries, were a disaster for the developing world. I don't see that recognising the adverse effects of the decisions of my own country is 'conceding' anything. To me it's just common sense. You seem to think it a weakness for a country to find fault or take blame or whatever for the bad things it does. I think that the opposite is true. It shows strength to realise mistakes and to try to make good on them, to take full responsiblity for your actions, to accept blame where it is appropriate.

This brings me to my main point. As I have said in previous threads, I can easily agree that America has influenced the world for the greater good in numerous ways but it has also had a hugely detrimental affect on the world in numerous other ways. What I take issue with is the fact that some Americans (yourself included) seem unable to accept any criticism from foreigners. There seems to be an inherent dislike of anything foreign as if it is only America that has ever done anything good in the world. All other cultures should bow down to the greater superiority of the mighty USA (unlike Obama who is confident enough to be able to show a little respect for a foreign head of state). There is also a sense that the rest of the world should somehow be eternally grateful to America for doing what it does (which is look after its own best interests). You almost never hear of any Europeans expecting America to be grateful to Europe for all the things that it has done for your country (although I'm sure you'll think that there are none).

You can, and should, be rightly proud of all the good things which America has done (as I am with Scotland). But, at the same time, you need to recognise that there is a lot of fault and blame which can be laid at your door (as I do with Scotland and Britain). I'm sure you'll disagree but that's my opinion.