Is Obama a Socialist?

[DuncanONeil]

There is no denying that US has in its history helped other nations of the world. I find it admirable that US, France AND Britain airlifted tons of aid to Berlin when Russia blocked all land access to it. This was soon after the second world war where thousands of Allied soldiers died fighting the Germans.

US has also contributed immensely to aid around the world since then. It's achievements in science and technology is also remarkable. I am grateful for it's contributions to the world.

But America is not without it's dark spots. When people talk about American arrogance, it's mistakes that it has yet to recognize, or apologize for, they are talking about something substantial.

Arrogance? I see you try to address this lower, we'll look at that. Mistakes? Not sure this is addressed so we'll hold off till later.
Well there is an intent, but it is not clear just what you consider a mistake, arrogance, or for what we need to apologize.

In 1953, to further Western interests, Americans played a hand in removing the democratically elected ruler of Iran.

Plain comment! is that supposed to be "arrogance" or a "mistake".

US has held a relatively unwavering support of Israel over the entire land conflict. Regardless of what side of the debate you are on, consistently supporting one side with money, arms and political support for an issue that is anything but simple gives of an impression of partiality.

Is it not better to be consistent than to bounce from side to side? Since a UN established country was physically attacked the day after it creation, in spite of massive concessions to those that attacked, you think it is what "arrogance" or "mistake"?

In 1988, a passenger jet was shot down by an American ship. As of today, there has been no apology.

Actually I would say that more properly you need to say not "formal" apology. "In 1996, the United States and Iran reached "an agreement in full and final settlement of all disputes, differences, claims, counterclaims" relating to the incident at the International Court of Justice.[6] As part of the settlement, the United States agreed to pay US$61.8 million in compensation to the families of the Iranian victims." Seems to me that there is an admission and apology inherent in such an action.

The CIA funded and trained thousands of Afghans to fight the Soviets. At the conclusion of the war, when the Afghans defeated the enemy of the Americans, the money to rebuild was no where to be found. The fighters who were so willingly trained now had no home to go to, and no money to replace it.

The aid was to assist in prosecution of a war. We did not fight in it so why are we bound to rebuild the country. Again is this "arrogance" or a "mistake"

These are just a few events that people in the other part of the world remembers when they think of America. If you think America is guilt free, then you are sorely wrong. Yes, other countries in the world have done a lot of crap, their hands have blood on them. But when you think of the global reach that the world's super power has to a country like Egypt or Iran, then you have less people affected by their actions.

People are going to remember first the things that support their preconceived notion of the issue in question. Perhaps that applies to you as well.

guilt
   /gɪlt/
–noun
1.the fact or state of having committed an offense, crime, violation, or wrong, esp. against moral or penal law; culpability:
2.a feeling of responsibility or remorse for some offense, crime, wrong, etc.,
3.conduct involving the commission of such crimes, wrongs, etc.:

Number one requires a determination of having committed such an act. Number two can not be assigned from without, nor determined to exist by an external entity. Number three also requires that a crime has occurred. None of these are supported by your statements.

And as for arrogance, when US-UK marched into war in Iraq with false assumptions, while France and Germany resisted, I remember outrage that the French could betray a country that saved them. French fries were now freedom fries, French wines were poured down the drain, a country that decided to listen to it's own populace and make it's own decision was now the betrayers?

France had pecuniary motives for opposition. Can't remember Germany's opposition.
Let's have a look at that "false assumption" comment? First what are the assumptions? Second how were they false? Much of the world was clear that Iran was a threat.

Like cbtboyuk said, a little humility doesn't hurt. In fact, it can help your standing in the world. What good is a expensive military if you aren't liked in the world?

As for Obama, hate or love his domestic policies, but his foreign is much better then what I've seen in the last decade. I used to know so many people who had nothing but respect for the USA. Two wars later not so much.

Obama's foreign policy consists of; "We should not have done that.", "We are sorry", and "How can I express a subservient attitude?"

[Lion]

Arrogance? I see you try to address this lower, we'll look at that. Mistakes? Not sure this is addressed so we'll hold off till later.
Well there is an intent, but it is not clear just what you consider a mistake, arrogance, or for what we need to apologize.

Perhaps I wasn't clear enough. I'll try to review what I said earlier so that you don't feel the need to be so defensive.

Plain comment! is that supposed to be "arrogance" or a "mistake".

Removing a democratically elected leader of a country because that person decided to side with his population over foreign interests, over issues that resided within the country's border is wrong. In my humble opinion, that would constitute a terrible mistake. America right now says their involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan is to better the lives of the population living there. Awesome! And I get the Afghanistan war, I really do, and to some extent, so do people from the East. But the Iraq invasion? North Korea seems like a country that could benefit a lot more. Somalia doesn't even have a government, why not invade that country and establish order? Why Iraq? For WMDs?

So yes, mistake. They should not have interfered with the politics of a sovereign nation, I doubt you'd appreciate if China schemed a way to covertly tried to topple your government.

Is it not better to be consistent than to bounce from side to side? Since a UN established country was physically attacked the day after it creation, in spite of massive concessions to those that attacked, you think it is what "arrogance" or "mistake"?

I'm curious with these concessions you speak of, giving that the area of Israel has increased dramatically since the creation of the country, or even 1967. Maybe in another thread so we don't derail this thread even further

Actually I would say that more properly you need to say not "formal" apology. "In 1996, the United States and Iran reached "an agreement in full and final settlement of all disputes, differences, claims, counterclaims" relating to the incident at the International Court of Justice.[6] As part of the settlement, the United States agreed to pay US$61.8 million in compensation to the families of the Iranian victims." Seems to me that there is an admission and apology inherent in such an action.

To the families of the victims, there is a huge difference. Money, and an actual apology are vastly different. This is not something I can convince you of, it's a matter of how you perceive life. In American courts, lawsuits are settled out of courts for monetary sums, but with no admission of guilt. Even in America, there is a legal difference.

The aid was to assist in prosecution of a war. We did not fight in it so why are we bound to rebuild the country. Again is this "arrogance" or a "mistake"

Prosecution of war?? The aid was to fund training and arms. This is in my opinion, a mistake. And you're correct, American soldiers did not fight in this war. Ethically though, America's actions showed that Afghanistan was an ally during that war. As an ally, the Americans really dropped the ball there. If you think that there was no obligation, you're right. But it was a low blow to the fighters who thought the Americans had their back. And defend it however you want, they resent you for it.

People are going to remember first the things that support their preconceived notion of the issue in question. Perhaps that applies to you as well.

guilt
   /gɪlt/
–noun
1.the fact or state of having committed an offense, crime, violation, or wrong, esp. against moral or penal law; culpability:
2.a feeling of responsibility or remorse for some offense, crime, wrong, etc.,
3.conduct involving the commission of such crimes, wrongs, etc.:

Number one requires a determination of having committed such an act. Number two can not be assigned from without, nor determined to exist by an external entity. Number three also requires that a crime has occurred. None of these are supported by your statements.

If you think that toppling a foreign government was not wrong, then US is not guilty.

If you think that providing Chemical arms to Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war was not wrong, then US is not guilty.

If you think that marching into Iraq with claims of WMDs, even though this was proven to be false is not wrong, then US is not guilty.

France had pecuniary motives for opposition. Can't remember Germany's opposition.
Let's have a look at that "false assumption" comment? First what are the assumptions? Second how were they false? Much of the world was clear that Iran was a threat.

False assumption - Weapons of Mass Destruction, where were they?

I assume you meant to type Iraq, and with no WMDs, what threat was there? If much of the world thought Iraq was a threat, why did India, China and Russia object to the war? India and China alone constitute about a third of the world's population. Much of Western Europe held the same opinion. I don't remember the armies of Brazil and Argentina part of the Coalition of the Willing. The only major country taking part in the war was UK. This was a huge difference then when there was a proper form of aggression in 1990, and the world firmly stood against Iraq.

Obama's foreign policy consists of; "We should not have done that.", "We are sorry", and "How can I express a subservient attitude?"

With the civilian Iranian plane, an apology like "I am sorry" can go a long way. "We are sorry" are not words of weakness. And I don't remember Obama ever saying or hinting at asking another country about how US can be subservient to them.

[Thorne]

The aid was to fund training and arms. This is in my opinion, a mistake. And you're correct, American soldiers did not fight in this war. Ethically though, America's actions showed that Afghanistan was an ally during that war. As an ally, the Americans really dropped the ball there. If you think that there was no obligation, you're right. But it was a low blow to the fighters who thought the Americans had their back. And defend it however you want, they resent you for it.

While I agree with much of what you've said here, I have to take issue with the above comment.

Sending aid to pay for training or arms is not a mistake if the aim of those fighting is consistent with our foreign policy. It was in the US's best interests for the Soviets to be prevented from taking control in Afghanistan, just as it was in the US's best interests to send aid to the Soviets and the British during WW2 to help them defeat the Germans. No one expected us to help pay for Soviet or British rebuilding and no one should have expected us to repay for Afghanistan's rebuilding. In fact, I would bet that many nations would have objected to our doing so because of the influence it might have garnered with the new government.

I do agree, however, that US foreign policy has frequently crossed the line into arrogance. Deposing, or helping to depose, a democratically elected government would seem to fly in the face of the very reasons this country was started. Mistakes are a bit trickier, though. What may seem a logical and rational step to take at the time can later prove to be a mistake, one which may have been unforeseeable.

[Lion]

While I agree with much of what you've said here, I have to take issue with the above comment.

Sending aid to pay for training or arms is not a mistake if the aim of those fighting is consistent with our foreign policy. It was in the US's best interests for the Soviets to be prevented from taking control in Afghanistan, just as it was in the US's best interests to send aid to the Soviets and the British during WW2 to help them defeat the Germans. No one expected us to help pay for Soviet or British rebuilding and no one should have expected us to repay for Afghanistan's rebuilding. In fact, I would bet that many nations would have objected to our doing so because of the influence it might have garnered with the new government.

I do agree, however, that US foreign policy has frequently crossed the line into arrogance. Deposing, or helping to depose, a democratically elected government would seem to fly in the face of the very reasons this country was started. Mistakes are a bit trickier, though. What may seem a logical and rational step to take at the time can later prove to be a mistake, one which may have been unforeseeable.

I get your rationale. But US paid for reconstruction efforts in Western Europe after World War 2, even funding German reconstruction efforts. They did the same for Japan. I would think that it US's best interest is to have a economically strong ally, then what Afghanistan ended up becoming.

Anyhow, that's my personal opinion, talking to people from that part of the world, they still resent Americans for not being there after the war. Things over there run differently then they do here. People do the job for what they think is mutually beneficial, they expected that they'd get help after. Whether you agree with that assessment or not, it would be something you'd need to talk to people there.

[DuncanONeil]

Quote:

Is it not better to be consistent than to bounce from side to side? Since a UN established country was physically attacked the day after it creation, in spite of massive concessions to those that attacked, you think it is what "arrogance" or "mistake"?


I'm curious with these concessions you speak of, giving that the area of Israel has increased dramatically since the creation of the country, or even 1967. Maybe in another thread so we don't derail this thread even further

The concessions were prior to May 14, 1948. The Palestine was divided by the UN into Israel and the Transjordan. Even with the Transjordan being some 75% of Palestine there were objections the future Israelis surrendered a further 25% of the lands to the Arabs. To date this and all other concessions have never been enough. As for maintaining "more" lands those are called security zones.

[DuncanONeil]

Quote:

The aid was to assist in prosecution of a war. We did not fight in it so why are we bound to rebuild the country. Again is this "arrogance" or a "mistake"


Prosecution of war?? The aid was to fund training and arms. This is in my opinion, a mistake. And you're correct, American soldiers did not fight in this war. Ethically though, America's actions showed that Afghanistan was an ally during that war. As an ally, the Americans really dropped the ball there. If you think that there was no obligation, you're right. But it was a low blow to the fighters who thought the Americans had their back. And defend it however you want, they resent you for it.

"The aid was to fund training and arms." What is that if not assisting in prosecution of war? Some would say, ally, and perhaps be correct, some would say, akin to "Lend/Lease", and perhaps be correct. However, "they resent you for it" is bit over the top. Many around the world "resent" us just because. Many do not! that is unlikely to change as long as people are what they are.

[DuncanONeil]

If you think that toppling a foreign government was not wrong, then US is not guilty.

Depends!

If you think that providing Chemical arms to Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war was not wrong, then US is not guilty.

Debatable!

If you think that marching into Iraq with claims of WMDs, even though this was proven to be false is not wrong, then US is not guilty.

Sorry there is no way I will concede that reasons, based on Intel, are invalid on after the fact determinations. There was too much info and varied sources that all agreed. Add to that the words of Saddam himself who admits, specifically, to working to convince Iran he was a nuclear power. All make the Intel and resulting decision valid. And for those of you that think it is important the UN was on board as well.

[DuncanONeil]

False assumption - Weapons of Mass Destruction, where were they?

Let me think! If I have something I am not supposed to have and you say I am going to kick in the door and look in five months. Is not that five months sufficient time to clean house? Yet in spite of cleaning house evidence of the existence of WMDs still surfaced. As well as Saddam's admission he wanted Iran to believe he actually had nukes already!
Odds are that any active WMDs were moved into or through Saudi territory.

[DuncanONeil]

With the civilian Iranian plane, an apology like "I am sorry" can go a long way. "We are sorry" are not words of weakness. And I don't remember Obama ever saying or hinting at asking another country about how US can be subservient to them.

In some respects you are correct about apologies. But when the head of a country begins to apologize for practically anything and everything it smacks of appeasement.
Of course he will never be heard to ask that question, save the odd open mike.
But a glaring example was the bow to the emperor of Japan. That bow in and of itself told, the Japanese at least, that the President saw himself as a person of lower stature than the Emperor. Yes bows are accepted greeting in Japan but the depth of bow is important. Two rulers would present equal bows, not what Obama did. Add to that the bow to the Saudi. These all show a level of misunderstanding of just what it is he is doing.