Cool, if not downright cold, relations between the US and China, and the US and Russia, especially the US and Russia, is hardly anything new and if you actually read the article it says the same thing. I don't know how many people accused Bush of souring our already troubled relationship with both Russia and China, but I don't recall it being a major talking point. Souring relations with the Europeans certainly, but not really Russia and China. Plus there are issues being faced now, like Syria and cyber crime that didn't exist or weren't as big back when Bush was President. You can't really compare Bush and Obama on those issues, because those issues didn't exist.
To call a cooling of relations between Russia and the US for supporting different sides of a civil war a failure of Presidental ability isn't really accurate or fair, really a cooling of relations is a natural part of being on two seperate sides of a civil war.
How can this be? O was going to heal all of the U.S. foreign policy difficulties brought about by Dubya!
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/19/w...bama-often-finds-a-cold-shoulder.html?hp&_r=0
While tangling with the leaders of two cold war antagonists of the United States is nothing new, the two bruising encounters in such a short span underscore a hard reality for Mr. Obama as he heads deeper into a second term that may come to be dominated by foreign policy: his main counterparts on the world stage are not his friends, and they make little attempt to cloak their disagreements in diplomatic niceties.
Even his friends are not always so friendly. On Wednesday, for example, the president is to meet in Berlin with Chancellor Angela Merkel of Germany, who has invited him to deliver a speech at the Brandenburg Gate. But Ms. Merkel is also expected to press Mr. Obama about the National Security Agency’s surveillance programs, which offend privacy-minded Germans.
For all of his effort to cultivate personal ties with foreign counterparts over the last four and a half years — the informal “shirt-sleeves summit” with Mr. Xi was supposed to nurture a friendly rapport that White House aides acknowledge did not materialize — Mr. Obama has complicated relationships with some, and has bet on others who came to disappoint him.
but... but... but... he's THE ONE.
The damage Bush did to relations world wide was massive and you have to earn that trust back. Obama has gone some of the way, but far far from all the way. Instead of the US having the benefit of the doubt these days, the US has to prove its intentions.
A good example is the whole "chemical weapons use" in Syria. France came out and said that Assad use it, but the US said it needed to double check the French results. Fair enough, but when the US finally came out and said it was true, the world said .... oh really? Everyone had forgotten the French evidence and that of the UN, but were pointing out that the US "called wolf" once before so why should the US be trusted?
Like it or not the US has lost a lot of credibility world wide because of Bush, and Obama has been unable to regain that credibility and I doubt that any US president in the near future will be able to do that.
Actually, the U.S. had better relations with many, many countries under Bush. O is in this thing over his head.
Actually, the U.S. had better relations with many, many countries under Bush. O is in this thing over his head.
Being liked is over rated. Being trusted is far, far more valuable in international relations.Perhaps you meant to say that the US had better relations with the governments of many countries under Bush rather than with the countries. The people of many countries did not like Bush, there is no getting around that.
I think the exact opposite is true now. The people of many countries are wild for Obama, but the governments don't seem to like him at all. I don't really see this as a surprise because Obama does better talking to groups, but he apparently isn't very good one-on-one. He reportedly has little personal engagement with members of Congress, even his own party.
Being liked is over rated. Being trusted is far, far more valuable in international relations.
Actually, the U.S. had better relations with many, many countries under Bush. O is in this thing over his head.
Greetings, humbolt. :2wave:
I'd like to carry that a bit further, and state that it is almost always better to be trusted, because that is a great measure of character. For instance, in polls, BHO is usually rated "likeable."
So which is the greatest compliment....I like him, or I trust him? I'll go with trust every time, because trust is earned! :thumbs:
I think the only country the US had better relations with under Bush was Israel. That's mostly because Netanyahu is a hawk who doesn't want peace, but Obama is not and does.
I went to see Obama when he visited Berlin in 2008, before he was elected, and thought he at least had a very good speechwriter and showed a really nice gesture towards us Germans, who were really pissed off by Bush. Now, 5 years later, I'm disappointed in Obama because he has not managed to clean up everything he promised.
I'm disappointed he did not close Gitmo and did not end massive violations of basic human rights that started under Bush, but even expanded some of them. I'm disappointed he did not more to solve the Middle Eastern conflict and that he keeps supporting Prism. But I'm glad he did not start a war against Iran, and that he treats us as who we are -- close allies of the US, rather than vassals --, addresses us, shows that he tries to understand us even if he disagrees.
Unlike Bush, Obama at least is from the same planet as we are and pays us respect, even if we disagree. Bush, on the other hand, thought the chauvinistic anti-European voters at home are more important for him than his closest allies. And he was culturally totally alien to us.
So, on the bottom line, I think Obama has achieved much after all regarding public opinion of America over here.
the case of Obama trying to close Guantanamo and being stopped by those who are only intent on destroying all his efforts
Sen. Daniel Inouye, D-Hawaii, chairman of the Appropriations Committee, favors closing Guantanamo, and the legislation his panel originally sent to the floor provided money for that purpose once the administration submitted a plan for the shutdown.
In changing course and seeking to delete the funds, he said, "The fact that the administration has not offered a workable plan at this point made that decision rather easy."
Look at the OP of this thread! The term 'the one' is used and it's unmistakably a term that is seething with hate toward him.
LOL!
tell it harry reid, chuck schumer, john kerry...
Senate Votes 90-6 To Block Funds For Guantanamo Closure - HuffPo
buncha kkk'ers
like one armed war here daniel inouye, chair of powerful appropriations
obama's an amateur
sorry
Being liked is over rated. Being trusted is far, far more valuable in international relations.
How can this be? O was going to heal all of the U.S. foreign policy difficulties brought about by Dubya!
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/19/w...bama-often-finds-a-cold-shoulder.html?hp&_r=0
While tangling with the leaders of two cold war antagonists of the United States is nothing new, the two bruising encounters in such a short span underscore a hard reality for Mr. Obama as he heads deeper into a second term that may come to be dominated by foreign policy: his main counterparts on the world stage are not his friends, and they make little attempt to cloak their disagreements in diplomatic niceties.
Even his friends are not always so friendly. On Wednesday, for example, the president is to meet in Berlin with Chancellor Angela Merkel of Germany, who has invited him to deliver a speech at the Brandenburg Gate. But Ms. Merkel is also expected to press Mr. Obama about the National Security Agency’s surveillance programs, which offend privacy-minded Germans.
For all of his effort to cultivate personal ties with foreign counterparts over the last four and a half years — the informal “shirt-sleeves summit” with Mr. Xi was supposed to nurture a friendly rapport that White House aides acknowledge did not materialize — Mr. Obama has complicated relationships with some, and has bet on others who came to disappoint him.
but... but... but... he's THE ONE.
President Obama's honeymoon with the world is over.
What was it, exactly, about Obama's controversy-marred trip to Germany and the G8 Summit in Northern Ireland that fell so flat? Ummm, how about … everything?
There were the snarky words from Vladimir Putin, who expressed an almost Soviet-esque distance from Washington in his views about Syria. "Of course our opinions do not coincide," the Russian leader said bluntly. There was the coded warning from Chancellor Angela Merkel about spying on friends, and her and Obama's continuing frostiness over the issue of economic stimulus versus austerity. Above all, there was Obama's vague attempt at the Brandenburg Gate to capture some wisp of his past glory by pledging vague plans to cut nuclear arms and an even vaguer concept of "peace with justice."
The "peace with justice" line was a quote from John F. Kennedy, Obama's attempt to steal just a little of JFK's thunder from 50 years before. He didn't come away with much, winning just a smattering of applause from a crowd that was one one-hundredth the size of JFK's. A crowd that, at about 4,500, was also much, much smaller than Obama drew as a candidate in 2008.
Not only is the honeymoon long over, folks. The marriage is becoming deeply troubled and, increasingly, loveless.
Some linguists later quibbled that Kennedy should have said "Ich bin Berliner," and that by adding the "ein" he was really saying, "I'm a jelly doughnut," since "Berliner" was the name of a pastry in some parts of Germany. In truth, the Germans didn't misunderstand JFK for a moment, and his speech instantly became one of the most famous and inspiring in modern history.
In contrast to JFK, and Ronald Reagan's almost-as-famous line 24 years later -- "Mr, Gorbachev, tear down this wall!" -- Obama came across as more of a jelly doughnut, a little soft and perhaps too sweet inside, especially compared to the hard-edged Putin. After their meeting, it was clear that Putin, right or wrong, was pursuing a set course on Syria and other issues, frankly backing the regime of Bashar al-Assad, while Obama was continuing to temporize over how much and what kind of aid he would give to the Syrian rebels.
"We cannot dictate the pace of change in places like the Arab world, but we must reject the excuse that we can do nothing to support it," the president declared in his Brandenburg Gate speech. It wasn't much of an applause line. Even after announcing that his "red line" had been crossed in Syria, Obama rejected air strikes and then told Charlie Rose that aid will be delivered "in a careful, calibrated way" because "it is very easy to slip slide your way into deeper and deeper commitments."
And even as he quoted Kennedy in his Brandenburg Gate speech Obama appeared to hop lightly from topic to topic, much as his foreign policy has. "The Russians know what they want. I think we've in a situation of strategic drift for several years," says John Arquilla of the Naval Postgraduate School.
The damage Bush did to relations world wide was massive and you have to earn that trust back. Obama has gone some of the way, but far far from all the way. Instead of the US having the benefit of the doubt these days, the US has to prove its intentions.
A good example is the whole "chemical weapons use" in Syria. France came out and said that Assad use it, but the US said it needed to double check the French results. Fair enough, but when the US finally came out and said it was true, the world said .... oh really? Everyone had forgotten the French evidence and that of the UN, but were pointing out that the US "called wolf" once before so why should the US be trusted?
Like it or not the US has lost a lot of credibility world wide because of Bush, and Obama has been unable to regain that credibility and I doubt that any US president in the near future will be able to do that.
That's nonsense. Bush got a UN sanctioned coalition to go into Afghanistan and he got a large coalition to go into Iraq even though the French blocked it in the UN Security Council. And dictators throughout the Middle East quaked in their boots worrying about who was next and it kept them in line. With Obama in charge, the US is laughed at internationally and the Middle East is the wild west and full of turmoil.
There's more to good international relations than a nice smile and platitudes. There's an expectation that friends will be friends regardless of how tough things get - the international community can't depend on Obama and the US for anything now.
That's nonsense. Bush got a UN sanctioned coalition to go into Afghanistan
and he got a large coalition to go into Iraq even though the French blocked it in the UN Security Council.
And dictators throughout the Middle East quaked in their boots worrying about who was next and it kept them in line.
With Obama in charge, the US is laughed at internationally and the Middle East is the wild west and full of turmoil.
There's more to good international relations than a nice smile and platitudes. There's an expectation that friends will be friends regardless of how tough things get - the international community can't depend on Obama and the US for anything now.
Iraq didn't exactly get a big coalition. What was it, US, the Brits, a couple of Poles and a guy from Moldova?
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?