Is Obama a Socialist?

[gagged_Louise]

Take #2 of the above (ran out of edit time, and I hope this one is cleaner and clearer, so please skip the old one):


Yes, those were a couple of really good points Tantric. When it comes to diplomacy, speaking up to other nations and to a variety of groups around the "world community", I believe the difference between US and European ideas and expectations, ways of addressing something, are due to something else too. The US at least for the past 150 years, has known she was by far the most powerful state in its own hemisphere, and full-scale invasion of the mainland or even attempts to exert hard pressure from other countries close by hasn't really been something she needed to take into account. Superiority can be raken for granted by a wide margin, nobody expects Canada or Mexico to invade, boycott shipping or try to revile the USA in foreign media. Nobody seriously thinks Brazil would make real damage to U.S. interests by some kind of boycott or by forming an anti-American military league. Maybe you'll say Cuba has been a threat to the heartland but during the Cold War they were mostly a pawn of the Soviet Union - a state of affairs that was furthered by U'S' policies - and without strong Russian assistance they could never have posed a threat to key American security interests. And to say Cuba is a threat to United States national interests *now* is a joke.

In Euroep, every country has had to adapt to that the neighbour might react, put pressure on you or even invade: everybody's got a history of being pushed in by the others' ambitions, of being invaded and bombed at home, of having your ports mined or your claims questioned by the neighbours. These days they're not going to war with each other but the possibility of mutual pressure, boycotts, responses and backroom politics is still something that can't be escaped. It's simply not possible, certainly not in tense conditions in peacetime, sometimes not during war either to go for thje kill at once and talk ina "read my lips" style, unless you're sure the path you're going is fail safe.

When Germany reunited in 1990, the West German leadership, Kohl and the others, did show pretty openly that they were taking this into their own hands and were not going to be stopped by anyone, even if the idea of a unified Germany had been something nobody wanted to voice just a few years before- but they took that path as they became aware that there was no one who was really going to try to stop them, as long as they had the support of most people in both German states. And as long as there wasn't a sudden revamp of the Cold War and a communist revival, which were barely possible by early 1990. They knew neither Gorbachev, Thatcher nor Bush was really going to put a foot down, and East Germany was both industrially and politically bankrupt, so they could afford to go for it in a style that was kind of American.

It's always been a tighter place. To just speak no-holds-barred like John Wayne, without weighing in that there could be a response to it, open or veiled, down the line, isn't often an option to European politics, and I guess that colours the expectations of how it's communicated and discussed as well. That goes a long way to explain why modern politicians and public spokesmen in Eiurope are more diplomatic and less blunt than American presidents and the like tend to be. In the old days, when Britain, France and Russia felt they were on top of the world, they could act and speak just as bluntly as the American idea is you should do. But those days are long gone, When it comes to intra-European affairs - Bismarck speaking about Britain, in peacetime, and so on - I guess they ended came to an end already in the 19th century.

[DuncanONeil]

Why is it more threatening? And threatening to whom?

Methinks you focused too much on the Atheist part and not enough on the unrestricted part.

[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?"

[DuncanONeil]

There is humility and then there is humility. All is not the same.

When speaking of apologies and respect abroad one might take into account the differences between low and high context cultures. The U.S. is a low context culture, where respect is earned by "straight talk." In short we are blunt, straight to the point, we primarily use language to express our thoughts, feelings and ideas as directly as possible. We tend to get annoyed by what we perceive as "beating around the bush."

Many other cultures (especially Asian and Middle Eastern) are high context, relying on subtle gestures and non verbal cues to help maintain harmony between people. These cultures generally place more emphasis on, and derive meaning from, the context in which a message is delivered. High context cultures are far more ritualistic in their communication. They are often offended by the "bluntness" and "arrogance" of low context communications.

The U.S. is a culture that is highly individualistic, hallmarked by self-reliance and competition. We place a higher value on helping ourselves, where collectivistic cultures place higher value on in-groups: extended families, communities, even organizations one works for. They tend to value the group over the individual and "saving face" (not so much your own but allowing others to save face) is the grease that keep the gears of their societies moving.

An apology in different cultures is a sign of strength not of weakness.

I for one, am happy we have a president that understands a little humility goes a long way abroad.

Respectfully,
Tantric

[Thorne]

Methinks you focused too much on the Atheist part and not enough on the unrestricted part.

Not at all. I question both of your contentions.

[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.

[denuseri]

Some Americans (in particular a certain congressman and some of his friends and a few others: who almost single handedly appeared to have started the CIA on the path of funding, training, and supporting soviet occupation opposition forces) tried to keep the congressional money train rolling after the war, only to have the rug pulled out from under them because it didn’t matter enough since the soviets were gone to the majority.

That was a huge mistake imho and we are still paying for it today.

As for supporting Israel...well we have been stalwart allies of theirs for decades now, and the House of Saud and it would be a very big mistake to withdraw our support now.

Israeli territorial gains however are almost entirely in response to the different times they have been attacked by their neighbors. They have good reason to be paranoid of those who have done nothing but speak of (and attempted to) destroying them since their country came once again into existence. If the people of Syria, Jordan, Egypt and other Islamic republics would embrace religious freedom like most of the rest of the free world and stop oppressing their own people in restrictive theocracies; things wouldn’t be the way they are over there. Such backward attitudes in the face of progress quite literally ruined the country of my birth (Lebanon which was doing well for a short time with its confessionals until it was subsumed by outside forces) and I pray every day that they will one day cease so that Arab, Christian, Jew, and whoever else can live in peace with each other for a change.

I fail to see however, what any of this most recent trend in sidebars has to do with Obama being a socialist or not because: a close study of history reveals that foreign policy in general (however its touted or promised to be in an election) is simply not executed along party lines or political party platform agendas no matter which way one cuts it in actual practice.

[tedteague]

Some Americans (in particular a certain congressman and some of his friends and a few others: who almost single handedly appeared to have started the CIA on the path of funding, training, and supporting soviet occupation opposition forces) tried to keep the congressional money train rolling after the war, only to have the rug pulled out from under them because it didn’t matter enough since the soviets were gone to the majority.

That was a huge mistake imho and we are still paying for it today.

As for supporting Israel...well we have been stalwart allies of theirs for decades now, and the House of Saud and it would be a very big mistake to withdraw our support now.

Israeli territorial gains however are almost entirely in response to the different times they have been attacked by their neighbors. They have good reason to be paranoid of those who have done nothing but speak of (and attempted to) destroying them since their country came once again into existence. If the people of Syria, Jordan, Egypt and other Islamic republics would embrace religious freedom like most of the rest of the free world and stop oppressing their own people in restrictive theocracies; things wouldn’t be the way they are over there. Such backward attitudes in the face of progress quite literally ruined the country of my birth (Lebanon which was doing well for a short time with its confessionals until it was subsumed by outside forces) and I pray every day that they will one day cease so that Arab, Christian, Jew, and whoever else can live in peace with each other for a change.

I fail to see however, what any of this most recent trend in sidebars has to do with Obama being a socialist or not because: a close study of history reveals that foreign policy in general (however its touted or promised to be in an election) is simply not executed along party lines or political party platform agendas no matter which way one cuts it in actual practice.

Very true, foreign policy has remained the same for clinton, bush 2, and Obama

[IAN 2411]

The US at least for the past 150 years, has known she was by far the most powerful state in its own hemisphere, and full-scale invasion of the mainland or even attempts to exert hard pressure from other countries close by hasn't really been something she needed to take into account.

Give me a break for fucks sake 150 years ago you had just shot Billy the Kid. The Gatling gun had not been invented, The United states was at war with itself Britain ruled the waves and the JFK aircraft carrier was nonexistent. Where the hell did you pick that number from?

Superiority can be taken for granted wide margin,

That was one of the reasons Pearl Harbour took place. [Before you scream at me, I am in no way making fun at a most tragic event in American history] Complacency; thinking that an atrocity such as that could never happen on or near your mainland.

Nobody expects Canada or Mexico to invade, boycott shipping or try to revile the USA in foreign media. Nobody seriously thinks Brazil would make real damage to U.S. interests by some kind of boycott or by forming an anti-American military league.

Nobody expected the London Tube disaster, 9/11, Canary Wharf, Lockerby, but they took place, there is an unwritten rule in the UK Special Forces expect the unexpected.

In Europe, every country has had to adapt to that the neighbour might react, put pressure on you or even invade: everybody's got a history of being pushed in by the others' ambitions, of being invaded and bombed at home, of having your ports mined or your claims questioned by the neighbours. These days they're not going to war with each other but the possibility of mutual pressure, boycotts, responses and backroom politics is still something that can't be escaped. It's simply not possible, certainly not in tense conditions in peacetime, sometimes not during war either to go for the kill at once and talk in a "read my lips" style, unless you're sure the path you're going is fail safe.

The UK has never bowed down to pressure from Europe when it comes to things that matter to us and our closest Allies. The USA ought to be thankful for that fact, because if the UK had not pushed them as hard as the United States were pushing, Sadam would still be in charge if Iraq and Both of our countries would not be over in Afghanistan getting our asses kicked, and for the Brits it is for the second time in history.

In the old days, when Britain, France and Russia felt they were on top of the world, they could act and speak just as bluntly as the American idea is you should do. But those days are long gone, When it comes to intra-European affairs - Bismarck speaking about Britain, in peacetime, and so on - I guess they ended came to an end already in the 19th century.

You really are living in a cotton wool world, just before the fall of the Berlin wall; Britain held the balance of nuclear power in the western world. We still have nuclear subs, and we still hold the balance of power, while you and the Russians were getting rid of war heads Britain retained theirs. So, Discounting the American war heads that you left England with, we are still a force to be counted. In years to come the world will be split into three, Europe, that includes Britain, France and Russia, USA+ South America, and Asia, we will all be dead and gone but let’s hope by then our descendents are not as complacent as you are talking now.
1...Now as for the question about your President, He failed to take charge of the oil spill.
2...He has just sacked General Chrystal Afghanistan’s only expert in counterinsurgency and probably the best in the world, why because his ego was dented. Then to rub salt in the wounds he sent another General to fall on his sword. Why have you got a non combatant as Commander in Chief, running your Military for?
3...His popularity is now down to 45% with a factor of 48% unpopular.
4...He has had the brass neck to tell the rest of the world how to get their economy straight, and if I am not mistaken the cause of all the problems in the first place was Merrill Lynch, Leamans, and Goldman Sax. China holds more American debt than the Americans, and if they pull the plug you will be in the same shit as Europe.

ANSWER, yes he is a Socialist, and just like Europe you will have to put the Conservatives in to get you out of the mire.
Regards ian 2411

[TantricSoul]

Everyone is entitled to their opinion and the ability to post it without being insulted.
This fact "protects" your biased opinion as well as everyone else's.
Please do attempt to keep from insulting other members while you post your "ridiculous" responses to their "ridiculous" posts.

"I look only to the good qualities of men. Not being faultless myself, I won't presume to probe into the faults of others."~ Mohandas Gandhi

[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.

[DuncanONeil]

Give me a break for fucks sake 150 years ago you had just shot Billy the Kid. The Gatling gun had not been invented, The United states was at war with itself Britain ruled the waves and the JFK aircraft carrier was nonexistent. Where the hell did you pick that number from?

Seems to me your data is more off than the originators.
Invention of the Gatling gun; your going to quibble about ONE year? The war was just getting started. In the nineteenth century Britain's "rule" of the waves was in decline. What is the point of mentioning the JFK?

[gagged_Louise]

The UK has never bowed down to pressure from Europe when it comes to things that matter to us and our closest Allies. The USA ought to be thankful for that fact, because if the UK had not pushed them as hard as the United States were pushing, Sadam would still be in charge if Iraq and Both of our countries would not be over in Afghanistan getting our asses kicked, and for the Brits it is for the second time in history.

Sorry, you seem to have missed the plot, and as you're clearly worked up I'm not going to make any further replies on this line. At least, you missed the real gist of what I was saying. The UK may have acted headstrong sometimes but not once sxince the Suez crisis (1956) have British leaders attempted to do gunboat diplomacy by openly or indirectly invoking their *own* nuclear arms (no, not the US war capabilities or American nukes). And actually the UK wouldn't have picked to go to war with Hitler in 1937, probably not even if Churchill had been PM at the ime, unless Hitler had acted like a complete fool and forced his hand, which he wouldn't do.

I'm picking that up because 1937 - or Munich in 1938 - is often cited as a point when Britain (and France. but hey we all know the French can't fight don't we?) should have spoken loud and saved the world, and as a precedent for "staring the bad guys down" and taking on a first-strike war against a tyrant. The trouble is, it's so unlikely any British leader would have declared war on Hitler in 1937 even if he had been perfectly aware of that Hitler was planning a new Europe-wide war.. Why? Because England was nowhere near ready for a war in terms of armament, anyone could see that, You picked up speed a good deal in the years up to 1939 and kept running: more and better airplanes, most of all, and a wider awareness that the war was coming. In 1937, Hitler would have crushed you and that was part of the cold reality behind why Hitler wasn't addressed the way Nazi majors are sometimes spoken to in the movies. I admit it would have been morally right, but the point is that doing it - declaring war in 1937 - is just a rear mirror dream: Britain would not have done it, and if she did she would have lost that war.

The stuff I'm discussing is when a country tries to rearrange the part of the world close to her own shores mainly by her own design, simply by resort to her own force, peaceful (economic) or military. Britain didn't quite do that one single time with Europe at least post 1920, and most of the time didn't even try. In the colonial world yes, sometimes, in Europe no, not simply grabbing the reins and reordering things to your liking.. Neither in 1914 nor in 1939 did Britain go to war on its own, by its own terms and out of a decision that was simply her own decision, triggered by none other than the immediate reasons for the war. Which is substantially what the USA would do in 1941, did in 2003, and would have done in 1950 and 1962 if the Korea and Cuba crisises had led to direct, hot face-to-face confrontations.

Suppose the Red Brigades, the commie terrorist group,from Italy, had struck in London in the early 80s, perhaps in collusion with the IRA, and there had been some kind of spurious evidence that they had acted in connivance with the Italian government at the time (stranger things have happened for sure!). Does anyone think Margaret Thatcher would have spoken boldly to Rome, demanded an unconditional excuse by the Italian cabinet before anything ahd been found out - or a confronation? That she would have kicked off a war with Italy over the affair, even if the British public were as furious as they were with Argentina? Or even threatened Italy the way Bush spoke of Iraq up to March 2003? Nope, and that's the difference in how political action and political language work in America and in Europe.

[gagged_Louise]

150 years ago you had just shot Billy the Kid

Billy was shot in 1881: twenty years off the mark. Now, I read sometime during the early Bush years about an Arizona politician/lawyer who was trying to get Billy the Kid posthumously pardoned and recognized as a brave man. And no, the guy running that campaign was neither Obama nor McCain.

[IAN 2411]

gagged_louise, I can see that you have one hell of a chip on your shoulder and it is for that reason i will not reply to drivel. In three posts you have said nothing about the Socialist tendencies of President Obama, all you have done is used the thread as a platform to run down England and the rest of Europe with your rants. I don’t know if you are American or an American living in Sweden but you are directing an argument that has nothing to do with this thread. I will leave your rant unchecked, and I wish you luck in your pursuit to changing history to the way that makes you feel more comfortable.

My most sincere regards ian 2411

[IAN 2411]

Seems to me your data is more off than the originators.
Invention of the Gatling gun; your going to quibble about ONE year? The war was just getting started. In the nineteenth century Britain's "rule" of the waves was in decline. What is the point of mentioning the JFK?

Is that the only bit i messed up on?? The JFK was an afterthought, i spent many nights on the JFK 1968-69 and the food on board was great and i just had to give it a mention. LOL

[gagged_Louise]

gagged_louise, I can see that you have one hell of a chip on your shoulder and it is for that reason i will not reply to drivel. In three posts you have said nothing about the Socialist tendencies of President Obama, all you have done is used the thread as a platform to run down England and the rest of Europe....

I wasn't even discussing England in the first post,just noting that Britain has *not* been an exception to the way other ancient European great powers have acted - and I only took it up later because you swerved the discussion on to UK leadership and England's wars. But I can see you have a considerably more imperial vision of Britain, even in the 21st century, than what most people have today. Fine. I was discussing political communication and people's ideas of how a president or a prime minister should - or even *can* - communicate in public with the leading people of other independent nations. No, I'm not American, buit it's obvious to anyone that the expectations of how a national front man should talk and act are different between many U.S. Americans - let's say, Middle Americans, especially, plus the neo-cons -and a majority of Western Europeans. Both the people, the media and the political class themselves, by the way.

And that's coloured by the fact that America has traditionally been more free to do as she pleases without anyone nearby bumping back into her with equal force. I'm not moralizing, just pointing out a fact. I think Obama recognizes this difference , just like JFK and Jimmy Carter did, so his style of talking to other nations appears more European, more diplomatic. And if one is used to a John Wayne style of communication - "smoke 'em out", "We're gonna chase down that mad dog" or flatly declaring that this shit ain't worth the paper it's written on - then maybe it will appear confusing but that's not his problem.

[IAN 2411]

gagged_louise, I will not side track this thread anymore than it has been but if you wish to start another thread i am in no doubt that we have a lot to discus about [my imperial vision,] [i love that LMFAO]

Regards ian 2411

[IAN 2411]

Everyone is entitled to their opinion and the ability to post it without being insulted. This fact "protects" your biased opinion as well as everyone else's.

[COLOR=”DarkOrange”]Please do attempt to keep from insulting other members while you post your "ridiculous" responses to their "ridiculous" posts.[/COLOR]

After you read your first quote, I will ask you to read your second quote and tell me. Is that supposed to be funny, or are you being sarcastic, derogatory and insulting to gagged_louise and myself. Explain to everyone in one of your colourful Posts, seeing as you have done those very things in public.

Regards ian 2411

[gagged_Louise]

Best regards Ian, but if you think I just jumped in out of the blue you should take a look at the posts immediately before my first one; they're at the bottom of the page before this one. I was following up on TantricSoul's post about political speech in high and low-context cultures. He was contrsting Asia and the U.S., I was taking that contrast to the U.S. vs Europe - and guess what, he recognized the link as soon as he read my post. I'm absolutely okay with the fact that Obama doesn't talk like in a Hollywood movie when he's addressing other nations or speaking on tv, the world isn't Hollywood.

Returning ot the header question, no, Obama is not a socialist. Besides the celebrated quote that Steelish pulled up is garbled, what Obama said back in 2001 (it's on Youtube) was that the constitution was an admirable document (and so it should be respected, worked from and held in high estem) but that it was also marked by some of the fundamental flaws of the 18rth century society it came from. The society was flawed in a number of ways, he never sadi the text was "fundamentally flawed". Okay, if you think the text is to be read as if it was handed down from heaven, then this might be the same kind of thing, but maybe he doesn't. Not very sensational. Back in the day slavery was taken for granted, absolutely no one who was close to the founding fathers pushed the question whether slaves should be allowed to vote or if slavery was a decent state of affairs in a free republic - and that had a few side effects on how the political system evolved. Even if the U.S. constitution doesn't mention slaves outrright, the way it was written and interpreted presupposed slavery (and segregation) for a long time. What's the trouble?

[DuncanONeil]

Is that the only bit i messed up on?? The JFK was an afterthought, i spent many nights on the JFK 1968-69 and the food on board was great and i just had to give it a mention. LOL

[COLOR="rgb(0, 0, 0)"]Well Gagged did say you were off by 20 on Billy the Kid![/COLOR]

[DuncanONeil]

Yes Obama is Socialist in his beliefs.

As to your interpretation of his comments in 2001. I am afraid I must disagree. In saying "it is marked by some of the fundamental flaws of the 18th century" he is speaking of the Constitution. That statement means he believes that the Constitution is fundamentally flawed. His own words! Surely crafted to flow in a fashion for people to come to the conclusion you reached. But your conclusion is in error.

On to slavery! "(A)bsolutely no one who was close to the founding fathers pushed the question whether slaves should be allowed to vote or if slavery was a decent state of affairs in a free republic". This is simply untrue. Many wanted to eliminate slavery. But in doing so they would have doomed the birth of the United States. The language extent in the Constitution was in fact a compromise between the pro and anti slavery blocs in the convention.

(W)hat Obama said back in 2001 (it's on Youtube) was that the constitution was an admirable document (and so it should be respected, worked from and held in high estem) but that it was also marked by some of the fundamental flaws of the 18rth century society it came from. ... Back in the day slavery was taken for granted, absolutely no one who was close to the founding fathers pushed the question whether slaves should be allowed to vote or if slavery was a decent state of affairs in a free republic -

[TantricSoul]

After you read your first quote, I will ask you to read your second quote and tell me. Is that supposed to be funny, or are you being sarcastic, derogatory and insulting to gagged_louise and myself. Explain to everyone in one of your colourful Posts, seeing as you have done those very things in public.

Regards ian 2411

In response to your statement, ian2411, I was attempting to interject an element of thoughtful humor into yet another warning message sent to a member whose post was deleted from this thread. The word "ridiculous" was entered into quotations in my response so that the offending member would get the message that their previous post was out of line, without having to make a big deal out of it. (since said member had used that description more than once).

I see by your reaction that you recieved the message but misunderstood the meaning.

If you prefer I would be happy to PM you and make the message very clear.

And Ill even do it colorfully

Respectfully,
Tantric

[SadisticNature]

Wow I think I finally agree with you on 1 point, its ridiculous for the Americans who caused the crisis to try and dictate to the world how it should be solved.

The rest however I rather vehemently dispute.
Your polling numbers look like data coming off fox news, if you look at the recent gallup poll, Obama is doing acceptably. Are you confusing numbers from a particular state with national numbers?

Regarding the Oil Spill what do you want him to do, nationalize the rig, put in experts and solve it? The problem is that rig didn't meet basic standards regulated by most of the world, but not required by the US anti-regulation party (aka the Republicans who cry communism whenever someone tries to pass a reasonable regulation that tries to prevent a catastrophic oil spill.) Basic equipment that could have prevented the spill was absent from the rig because the US government is one of few in the world that chose not to require it.

As for the sacking of the General, it is impossible to execute policy on the ground when people not only disagree with you but air their grievances publicly. The US has been at war in Afghanistan that the idea they have only ONE counterinsurgency expert for the region is ludicrous.

As for Obama being a socialist, he's to the right of most of the world. His health care plan is far to the right of the plan that Britains convervatives don't dare attack in virtually every other country in the world he'd be in a right wing party. The democrats nominated him in the primaries because he was to the RIGHT of Clinton who was seen as too left to win. Clinton was also seen as a repeat of a Clinton presidency which wasn't accused of being socialist.