Or maybe the Soviet Union and Communism would still be on the march around the world...
We won. I'm not making any apologies. And I won't second guess any of it.
Obama on his US World Apology tour, recently stated that we are an arrogant country.
Questions:
Are we?
What do you think of Obama's statements?
I want to thank you for posting this, because its a good example of the arrogance that the President talked about overseas. I really don't mean to criticize you, I just think its very convenient that you said this.
President Obama compared these statements of American arrogance to the ignorance and sometimes the attitude the Europeans have towards Americans. I think its about time our President has come out and said this.
Wherever I have lived I have always said that Americans are sometimes arrogant. But its not like we are that way all the time, I love this country, and one reason I love it is because we can have our leader go overseas and admit something that his own people are sometimes afraid to admit. These people are so afraid they are then quick to label our leader's remarks as, like you said, "horrendous" or something to that extent.
Unfortunately, Reverend_Hellhound, in the only way that he knows how, has made an unfair poll, something I have done time and again. I don't think our country is arrogant, but we are also not modest, so it can't be dealt with in absolutes. We are not necessarily an arrogant country in general, but I think we can be called arrogant.
I'm also not saying we should do things like pull out of world diplomacy completely, this would be wrong. We are powerful enough a country to be almost "policing" the world, but along with this power comes the arrogance of some Americans.
I find Obama's statements extremely offensive, naive and very misguided.
If you compare our nations policies versus those of former and present Communist nations along with most of Europe’s, you find that we are perhaps the least arrogant when it comes to foreign policy.
Suggesting that America is arrogant is about as idiotic and suggesting that our troops lost the fight in Iraq. But when it comes to Liberals, since when did REALITY or the FACTS get in the way of their lunatic diatribe.
:2wave:
Well you said it so it must be true.I find Obama's statements extremely offensive, naive and very misguided.
If you compare our nations policies versus those of former and present Communist nations along with most of Europe’s, you find that we are perhaps the least arrogant when it comes to foreign policy.
Damn liberals!! They are always the root cause of evil in this world!!!!!!!!Suggesting that America is arrogant is about as idiotic and suggesting that our troops lost the fight in Iraq. But when it comes to Liberals, since when did REALITY or the FACTS get in the way of their lunatic diatribe.
:2wave:
The full quote was:
"There have been times where Americans have shown arrogance and been dismissive, even derisive; but in Europe there is an anti-Americanism that is at once casual but can also be insidious."
He was speaking to the evils of arrogance worldwide... and he didn't say America is an arrogant nation, he said that Americans at times have shown arrogance. Big difference.
Nice :spin: though.
Nicaragua, Honduras, Panama, Iraq, Lebanon, Somali, Georgia, phillipines, Haiti, Columbia, arab-Israeli conflicts, Grenada, Cuba.
We are big on doing things "my way or the highway ". All for the fighting of communism/terrorism/democracy of course.
So supporting despots in S america is justified? Bombing cities to find one man that results in thousands of deaths is justified? Standing by and watching civilians get slaughtered because our preisdent was too scared for his political career to do anything about it is justified?
That an intentionally vague enemy of communism and terrorism is a viable reason for any action for any administration?
Some actions were reasonable and justified. Some were not. We are not an infallible beacon of righteuosness nor are we the Great Satan. Own up to and admit our mistakes and wrong doings while praising and glorifying our noble accomplishments. That is all.
It's much older than the fight against terrorism, we're great at installing tinpot dictators in murderous regimes in other countries when they do what we want, then as soon as they decide they don't have to listen to us, we go and wipe them out.
The question isn't about what the Russians do, it's about how the United States acts. Regardless of Russia's actions, our responsibility for our actions is our own, we can't blame them and say two wrongs make a right. The fact is, both the US and USSR spent a great deal of the Cold War propping up sympathetic regimes and trying to impose their pet political systems worldwide in the bizarre belief that their way is automatically the best for everyone, screw the wishes of the native population. The Russians wanted to oppose capitalism and force communism on everyone they could, the U.S. wanted to do the opposite and both sides were utterly blinded by their irrational hatred of the other that they did some really idiotic things. That's why we ended up supporting the Taliban, because they were fighting the Russians and the enemy of our enemy must automatically be our friend. That's why we supported the Shah in Iran. That's why so many of these tinpot dictators that we've propped up have come back to haunt us in the end, we spent a lot of years trying to get them damn Russkis at every turn.
Maybe if we had stopped to think about what we were doing along the way, we wouldn't have made so many mistakes.
Well you said it so it must be true.
Damn liberals!! They are always the root cause of evil in this world!!!!!!!!
:2rofll:
Could you be a bit more detailed so I can take your position seriously?
LaMid understood and gave a valid legitimate response free of rhetoric and with defensible statements. Perhaps an old fogey like you could learn something from him?This coming from the person making these comments?
Quote: Originally Posted by scourge99
Nicaragua, Honduras, Panama, Iraq, Lebanon, Somali, Georgia, phillipines, Haiti, Columbia, arab-Israeli conflicts, Grenada, Cuba.
We are big on doing things "my way or the highway ". All for the fighting of communism/terrorism/democracy of course.
Your posts always smack of profound irony Scourge. Carry on. :rofl
LaMid understood and gave a valid legitimate response free of rhetoric and with defensible statements. Perhaps an old fogey like you could learn something from him?
You are wasting what little life you have left old man. Carry on DENIED. :sigh:
How did we recently earn the title of being the most arrogant in Liberals minds? By having a President who had the audacity to enforce UN resolutions on Iraq and who actually did what he says he is going to do. What a shocker.
LaMid understood and gave a valid legitimate response free of rhetoric and with defensible statements. Perhaps an old fogey like you could learn something from him?
Hell Yeeeeeaaaahhhhh!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
When you ARE number 1 you're obligated to talk **** and live it up like you ARE #1!!!!
!!!U S A! USA! U S A!!!
Our pres is doing a great job brown nosing the world while perpetuating the same foundations of Bush's, Clintons' and previous presidents foreign policy; same book, different cover. But just ignore that and let us mesmerize you with his pretty speeches and charming mantras. Its worked so far! "Change" "Hope" "Peace"
Nicaragua, Honduras, Panama, Iraq, Lebanon, Somali, Georgia, phillipines, Haiti, Columbia, arab-Israeli conflicts, Grenada, Cuba.
We are big on doing things "my way or the highway ". All for the fighting of communism/terrorism/democracy of course.
But it was arrogant to go into gulf war 2 with a "coalition of the willing" despite the politics, wouldn't you say?
Reagen era: despite the fact that we opened the door to Israel who then made a mess of things and then we stood by and watched as the mess we created created a civilian slaughter? :no:
So that proves something?
true. But in hindsight it appears we were a bit too arrogant in addressing Russias concerns.
don't know enough about it to comment much.
same reason we are all over S America.
Nasir and Egypt were our ally until we took an unflinching pro-israeli stance in the 6-day war. Nasir did the only rationale thing and opened his arms to the Soviets. By failing to moderate our approach we poisoned our relationship with the Arabs. Such disdain is still present today and we are reaping what we sowed.
so we can do no evil? All is fair? We've failed PATHETICALLY with Cuba. I don't know if another strategy would work better but I do know our goals have not been achieved.
So supporting despots in S america is justified? Bombing cities to find one man that results in thousands of deaths is justified? Standing by and watching civilians get slaughtered because our preisdent was too scared for his political career to do anything about it is justified?
That an intentionally vague enemy of communism and terrorism is a viable reason for any action for any administration?
Some actions were reasonable and justified. Some were not. We are not an infallible beacon of righteuosness nor are we the Great Satan. Own up to and admit our mistakes and wrong doings while praising and glorifying our noble accomplishments. That is all.
so when you can't respond to arguments you attack the poster? Petty and childish.
You'll be ignored until you can respond rationally.
If it wasn't apparent why all of those countries were mentioned then there's no point in me continuing the discussion with you. Obviously another poster, LaMidRighter, understood the post. Perhaps you should consult his response for some clues.
The first post wasn't an argument. It was a personal opinion that was made in jest. *could you not tell by the obvious hyperbole and ridiculous emoticons* I guess not.
The second post was a serious argument supported by historical events which was enitely seperated and unrelated to the first post.
The perceived hypocrisy that you falsely believe exists does nothing to address the arguments. Try again.
You are wasting your time and mine.
Not necessarily. Any number of events could of made Saddam irrelevant. Clinton put half-hearted efforts into undermining the man but like JFK got cold feet and botched the whole thing culminating in the failed 1996 attempt making Saddam clear his ranks of any perceived loyalty and destroying all intelligence sources for the near future.
But we made the situation far worse. We hold the reins on Israel and the only thing stopping a president from using them is backlash from the pro-Israel lobby in the US.
Israel had hedged their bets that the Christian militia could establish dominance and thus a friendly government in Lebanon could be established. However, things did not goes as planned. The result was the Christian militia slaughtering civilian Muslims claiming that they were PLO all while Israeli forces guarded the doors and the US military watched from the seas.
In the end the Israel achieved a momentary reprieve from PLO and Hezbollah assault but sowed the seeds for future attacks by so effectively dismantling the government of Lebanon leaving a civil war to rage for the next decade where Hezbollah would eventually return in strength.
I think it was probably a good thing. Re-reading it, it should be off the list I created.
Were are talking about Georgia right?
And now the Arabs are left without a leader who could of brought wide ranging peace and stability. Nasir was this hope.
ME conflict has been around intensely since post WW2.
I don't really have a solution. I wouldn't want the country to get stronger but it sucks punishing the people.
I'm saying that its common procedure to establish a vague enemy so that tertiary goals can be achieved under its guise.
That is, declare a "war on terror" and anybody that participates in terror (which includes just about any country with a military or intelligence agency) and you've got a lot of public support whenever you use your buzzword.
Grenada - Communists! Democracy!
Iraq - Terrorists! Democracy!
Panama - Drugs! Democracy!
The list goes on.
This is not to say that many of these conflicts are not justifiable or needed but merely that the propaganda is... well, propaganda. The facts come later.... sometimes much later. Democracy! :doh
Well you said it so it must be true.
Damn liberals!! They are always the root cause of evil in this world!!!!!!!!
:2rofll:
Could you be a bit more detailed so I can take your position seriously?
LaMid understood and gave a valid legitimate response free of rhetoric and with defensible statements. Perhaps an old fogey like you could learn something from him?
You are wasting what little life you have left old man. Carry on DENIED. :sigh:
Scarecrow Akhbar said:You don't agree that freedom is better than slavery?
Also, we did what we needed to to do survive the threat the Soviet Union presented to us.
Should we have let the Soviets conquer Afghanland, and thus have Russian troops on Iran's south eastern border, or should we have assisted the people who lived there who wanted to resist the invaders?
Putting missiles in Cuba was a demonstrable threat.Which demonstrable threat was that? And don't bother going with the "we had to make the world safe for democracy!" line.
How many demonstrable threats are needed to acknowledge that someone desires to be your enemy?
What you're failing to understand, celticlord, is that if you have a perceived enemy, the appropriate steps are as follows:
a. Do nothing until they do something 'really' bad. That way you are certain they are angry at us.
b. After they do something 'really' bad, gather together our friends and allies to discuss the situation and gauge their feelings.
c. Do a bit of soul-searching, and come to a better understanding of 'why' they hate us.
d. Acknowledge our past mistakes and offenses. Apologize.
e. Having given our friends and allies time to gauge their feelings, call upon them to act with us forcefully by boycotting the Special Olympics, and call upon the American people to carpool to work in order to reduce oil imports.
f. After praying on the matter for almost a year... launch a few cruise missiles at tampon factories as a clear, demonstrable, and overwhelming show of military might.
Did I miss anything?
Works for me.The appropriate steps for an enemy, perceived or otherwise:
- To maintain my own honor, tell said enemy that peace will be achieved through one of two paths: him ending his opposition to me or me killing him.
- If said enemy ends his opposition, offer him my right hand while keeping my left hand on my weapon.
- If said enemy does not end his opposition, kill him.
A synopsis of abject nonsense, my favorite of course is the absurd notion that Nassar was a US ally, that one is a doozy. Perhaps a history lesson is in order so that you won’t continue making such outrageously absurd comments in a vacuum of facts and the truth:
Gamal Abdel Nasser - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Relations with the United States
After the 1973 Arab-Israeli War, Egyptian foreign policy began to shift as a result of the change in Egypt's leadership from President Gamal Abdel-Nasser to Anwar Sadat and the emerging peace process between Egypt and Israel. Sadat realized that reaching a settlement of the Arab-Israeli conflict is a precondition for Egyptian development. To achieve this goal, Sadat ventured to enhance US-Egyptian relations to foster a peace process with Israel.
[edit] Military cooperation
Between 1979 and 2003, the US has provided Egypt with about $19 billion in military aid, making Egypt the second largest non-NATO recipient of US military aid after Israel. Also, Egypt received about $30 billion in economic aid within the same time frame.
Military cooperation between the US and Egypt is probably the strongest aspect of their strategic partnership.
Aswan Dam in International Perspective
In 1955 Nasser was trying to portray himself as leader of Arab nationalism, in opposition to Hashemite Iraq, especially following the Baghdad pact of 1955. At this time the US was much more concerned with the possibility of communism spreading to the Middle East than protecting Israel, and saw Nasser as a natural leader of an anti-communist Arab league. And the USA and Britain offered to help finance construction with a loan of USD $270 million in return for Nasser's leadership on resolving the Arab-Israeli Conflict. Nasser presented himself as a tactical neutralist, and sought to play off US and Soviet concerns to Egyptian and Arab benefit.[4]
Angered by the Baghdad Pact and following Ben-Gurionist theory, Israel attacked Egyptian forces in Gaza and defeated them soundly. Nasser realized that he could not legitimately portray himself as the leader of pan-Arab nationalism if Israel could push him around militarily. He looked to quickly modernize his military, and he turned to the USA first.
John Foster Dulles and Dwight Eisenhower tell Nasser that the US will supply him with weapons only if they can send military personnel to supervise the training and use of the weapons. Nasser doesn’t like these preconditions and looks to the USSR. Dulles believes that Nasser is only bluffing, and that the Soviet Union won’t aid Nasser. But the USSR promises Nasser a quantity of arms in exchange for a deferred payment of Egyptian grain and cotton. Instead of retaliating against Nasser for turning to the Soviets, Dulles sought to improve relations with Nasser. This explains the US/British offer of December ’55.
Though the Czech arms deal actually increased US willingness to invest in Aswan, the British cited the deal as a reason for withdrawing their funding. What angered Dulles much more was Nasser’s recognition of communist China, which was in direct conflict with Dulles’s policy of containment. There are several other reasons the US decided to withdraw the offer of funding. Dulles believed that the Soviet Union wouldn’t actually make good on its promise to help the Egyptians out. He was also irritated by Nasser’s neutrality and attempts to play both sides of the Cold War. Actual NATO allies in the Middle East, like Turkey and Iraq, were irritated that a persistently neutral country like Egypt was being offered so much aid.
celticlord said:Putting missiles in Cuba was a demonstrable threat.
Khrushchev's "We will bury you" rhetoric was a demonstrable threat.
Invading Afghanistan was a demonstrable threat to the West's access to the Persian Gulf states.
Stealing US nuclear weapons secrets and technology was a demonstrable threat.
Stealing US submarine technology was a demonstrable threat.
What you're failing to understand, celticlord, is that if you have a perceived enemy, the appropriate steps are as follows:
a. Do nothing until they do something 'really' bad. That way you are certain they are angry at us.
b. After they do something 'really' bad, gather together our friends and allies to discuss the situation and gauge their feelings.
c. Do a bit of soul-searching, and come to a better understanding of 'why' they hate us.
d. Acknowledge our past mistakes and offenses. Apologize.
e. Having given our friends and allies time to gauge their feelings, call upon them to act with us forcefully by boycotting the Special Olympics, and call upon the American people to carpool to work in order to reduce oil imports.
f. After praying on the matter for almost a year... launch a few cruise missiles at tampon factories as a clear, demonstrable, and overwhelming show of military might.
Did I miss anything?
Way to quote nothing of use. Here, I will educate you even though its obvious an old dog can't learn new tricks.
Now its quite obvious Egypt wasn't anything of an ally like Great Britain or France but we have had positive and meaningful relations with them with zero hostilities: we provided military and economic aid and worked to finance their dam. We even sabotaged British and French plans to capture the Sinai. We were every bit afraid that the Soviets would step in and capitalize on any animosity we directed toward Egypt. Nasser was in charge of a strong Arab country who had the ability to lead all Arab countries. This all changed with the Arab-Israeli conflicts and especially after the 6 day war when we stopped player neutral and backed Israel 100%.
In America, there's a failure to appreciate Europe's leading role in the world. Instead of celebrating your dynamic union and seeking to partner with you to meet common challenges, there have been times where America has shown arrogance and been dismissive, even derisive.
But in Europe, there is an anti-Americanism that is at once casual but can also be insidious. Instead of recognizing the good that America so often does in the world, there have been times where Europeans choose to blame America for much of what's bad.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?