Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Add Reply
"Bama-Bashing in Britian
Topic Started: Feb 26 2010, 08:03 AM (264 Views)
Joan Foster

"But this mess is just typical of the drift in US foreign policy – if one can say that it even HAS a coherent foreign policy these days. As I said, at the core of the problem is a simple inability to recognise and support our friends over adversaries. In his first year in office Obama made numerous apologies for America’s past to the Third World, he effusively greeted the Venezuelan dictator Hugo Chavez, he bowed low to the Saudi ruler, and called for a “reset” of relations with Russia – all the while implying that America was at fault for all these problems. At the same time he rudely undermined the security of America’s Eastern European allies by cancelling the ballistic missile defence with no notice and no prior discussion, he failed to push for a free trade agreement with Colombia – America’s strongest ally in South America – and he supported Chavez’s allies when they tried (luckily unsuccessfully) to unseat a democratic and pro-US government in Honduras.

A big part of the problem is a Secretary of State who is a lightweight as far as foreign policy is concerned. Obama brought Hillary Clinton into the cabinet for domestic policy considerations. He needed to put Mrs Clinton – and her husband – under tight control. As a powerful senator from New York, she would probably have taken over as the de facto leader of the Democratic Party and been able to challenge Obama’s “Chicago Gang” for control of the party.

Despite the acclaim that America’s mainstream media has heaped on Hillary Clinton over the years, her foreign policy background and experience before becoming Secretary of State was to accompany her husband on foreign trips and preside over “first wives” dinners for the spouses of visiting heads of state. One learns a lot about protocol and ceremonies – but this is no preparation for the real work of making policy. Clinton has no experience or education in foreign policy. She speaks no foreign languages and has never lived abroad. She lacks the intellectual temperament to be a foreign policy leader. Like Obama, she has long surrounded herself with sycophants.

On assuming office, Obama’s vision of foreign policy was simple: he would repudiate past American policies and the whole world would melt before the president’s charm. The administration somehow thought that we really didn’t have enemies with agendas completely hostile to our own – there were just countries that had become offended by US actions and they would happily cooperate with America as soon as the evil Republicans were gone. Well, it hasn’t worked – and there was no Plan B.

With a president overwhelmed by domestic problems, Hillary Clinton has failed to step in and set a foreign policy vision. Simply put, she does not have the brains or the experience to develop a coherent foreign policy vision for America. This is how we get policy mistakes on issues such as the sovereignty of the Falklands."


http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamescorum/100027451/american-neutrality-on-the-falklands-is-a-symptom-of-us-foreign-policy-drift/
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
LTC8K6
Member Avatar
Assistant to The Devil Himself
Argentina is currently trying to claim the Falklands again, and Obama apparently failed to support Britain.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Joan Foster

Comment under the article....


"The knock on effects of this rudderless and weak approach to foreign affairs will deliver a mighty kick to the nether regions of the US in the coming years.

Already we have Iran ignoring any blustering from Obama and proceding rapidly towards nuclear weapons capability with the objective of eliminating the land of Zion. As evidenced in the last month the Israelis don’t mess about in their foreign affairs and will when their intelligence suggests capability is close will deliver its own devastation on the middle east. A president who was not weak on terror or vacillating as Obama is would have preempted this some time ago.

In Europe he has snubbed most of his natural allies DVDs , Churchill’s bust , non attendance at summits etc. , deserted eastern states who were militarily aligned to the US when the Russian bear growled leaving them to their own misery.

In the South America he has supported the ludicrous Chavez and the leftist Mendez and now given the green light to Kirchner over the Falklands.

In the islamic world he has given in at nearly every opportunity. We await his pronouncement upon the jihad sponsored against Switzerland today.

Through his ineptitude the US will reap a terrible harvest."
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Walt-in-Durham

LTC8K6
Feb 26 2010, 08:09 AM
Argentina is currently trying to claim the Falklands again, and Obama apparently failed to support Britain.
The Falklands/Malvinas have been claimed and counter claimed since 1690. The British discovered and charted the islands in that year and claimed them, but did not settle them. Next up, Treaty of Utrecht (1713) confirmed Spain's control of extensive territories in the Americas--including the Falklands/Malvinas. However, the Spanish never settled the Malvinas. The first European to actually settle on the islands was a French nobleman, Antoine de Bouqainville, eager for revenge against Britain for his country's loss of Quebec. In 1764 he claimed the islands in the name of Louis XV and built a small fort and settlement just north of Port Stanley on the eastern island. A year later a British ship visited, claimed the islands for Great Britain, planted a vegetable garden and left.

In 1766 Captain John McBride arrived to consolidate the British claim, build a fort, and eject any other settlers on the islands who might argue Britain's claim. The British encountered the French settlement, numbering, at the time, about 250 people on East Falkland. The French pointed out that their's was a properly constituted colony and it was the British who should leave. Neither did so. As France was an ally of Spain, an agreement was reached in 1767 by which the French settlement on East Falkland was ceded to Spain in exchange for financial compensation to de Bouganville. The English remained nonetheless. Two years later, in 1769, the Buenos Aires Captain General, Francisco Bucarelli was instructed by Madrid to drive the stubborn British from the islands. His five ships and 1400 men greatly outnumbered the British commander and his small band of marines who promptly evacuated Port Egmont. This was actually the first Argentine invasion of the Malvinas.

In 1790 Britain and Spain signed the Nootka Sound Convention by which Britain formally renounced any colonial interest in South America as well as the nations adjacent. The Falklands then reverted to a Spanish colony until the collapse of that empire in the early nineteenth century. In 1811, the Spanish removed settlers from the islands because of the stirring independence movement in Buenos Aires. The islands were essentially ungoverned until 1820 when the new state of the Union Provinces of Rio de la Plata, a forerunner of the present day Argentina. Argentina sent a frigate to establish claim to the island as part of Argentina's colonial legacy from Spain. At one point, the US and Argentina got into a tiff over the islands. A seal hunting dispute erupted between the US and Argentina in 1829. The USS Lexington sailed south, evicted the Argentine government from the Falklands and declared the islands "free of government."

The British took advantage of the situation. In 1833 two ships under Captain James Onslow captured the islands. Outgunned, the few remaining Argentines were forced to leave the islands. With the exception of several months during 1982, the British have controlled the Falklands ever since.

By my estimation, the British have given up the Falklands/Malvinas in two treaties. The French have given them up in one treaty. The Spanish have gotten them twice by treaty. Argentina claimed them as successors to Spain. The United States has, by force, declared them free of government. The British have colonized the Falklands in the absence of government as declared by us and Argentina has twice tried to take the islands by force. A very checkered history if you ask me. Since the last Falklands/Malvinas war, the British have squandered away their navy and Argentina has squandered their economy. So why is this our problem?

Walt-in-Durham
Edited by Walt-in-Durham, Feb 26 2010, 09:11 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
LTC8K6
Member Avatar
Assistant to The Devil Himself
IIRC, the renewed interest in possible oil and the start of drilling, is heating things up again.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
wingedwheel
Member Avatar
Not Pictured Above
Hillary may not be doing a great job. But make no mistake, the policy she is following is 0bama's. He is the one calling the shots. He is also the one hiring out special envoys to further diminish her stature.
Edited by wingedwheel, Feb 26 2010, 11:29 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Carolyn says
Member Avatar

So the media is finally waking up NOW to the realization that Obama isn't fit to be President?

Damn! How f**king obvious could it have been two years ago that this 'community organizer' - who was too stupid to write his own biography, who cuddled up to a sleazy slumlord, who had never run a business in his entire life, had a racist 'God DAMN America!' minister for 20 years, had an unrepentant terrorist as a political mentor (not to mention a child molesting 'mentor' from his childhood in Hawaii) and, of course, had never done anything in office except to run for a higher one - was unfit to be President? I mean, what the hell was the matter with these media people? It was staring them in the face the entire time in 2008 - this man was nothing but a sleazy, grinning con who'd memorized a few glib phrases, talked about books he didn't understand and ideas he couldn't grasp and problems he'd never solved. This guy was nothing - he'd done nothing, he knew nothing, he'd accomplished nothing. And yet the media just tingled its leg and proclaimed that miraculously all this 'nothing' was going to turn into something the moment he took office on Jan. 20, 2009? Yes, if we all HOPED, this pig's ear would then CHANGE into a silk purse. Forget about asking for proof that he could do the job - we don't want no stinking proof, it was his dreams that counted. And now those dreams are turning into a nightmare and they're - surprised?

Oh, for Christ's sake. It was all there, it was staring the media in the face - hell, it was screaming at them from the pulpit of United Trinity Church that he was a racist con. It was screaming at them that his 'awards' were shallow and empty with no substance to back them up, that his 'accomplishments' were nothing but sleazy gifts from self-serving profs and politicians and ward bosses, etc. It was there the whole damned time that Obama was nothing but smoke and mirrors - the mirrors reflecting the media's own bigotry and arrogance, while the smoke obscured Obama's sleaze, stupidity, duplicity, corruption and lies. It was there the whole damned time - yet only NOW the media is finally seeing it?

Damn, the media makes me sick.

Edited by Carolyn says, Feb 26 2010, 11:55 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
longstop
longstop
Carolyn says
Feb 26 2010, 11:54 AM
So the media is finally waking up NOW to the realization that Obama isn't fit to be President?

Damn! How f**king obvious could it have been two years ago that this 'community organizer' - who was too stupid to write his own biography, who cuddled up to a sleazy slumlord, who had never run a business in his entire life, had a racist 'God DAMN America!' minister for 20 years, had an unrepentant terrorist as a political mentor (not to mention a child molesting 'mentor' from his childhood in Hawaii) and, of course, had never done anything in office except to run for a higher one - was unfit to be President? I mean, what the hell was the matter with these media people? It was staring them in the face the entire time in 2008 - this man was nothing but a sleazy, grinning con who'd memorized a few glib phrases, talked about books he didn't understand and ideas he couldn't grasp and problems he'd never solved. This guy was nothing - he'd done nothing, he knew nothing, he'd accomplished nothing. And yet the media just tingled its leg and proclaimed that miraculously all this 'nothing' was going to turn into something the moment he took office on Jan. 20, 2009? Yes, if we all HOPED, this pig's ear would then CHANGE into a silk purse. Forget about asking for proof that he could do the job - we don't want no stinking proof, it was his dreams that counted. And now those dreams are turning into a nightmare and they're - surprised?

Oh, for Christ's sake. It was all there, it was staring the media in the face - hell, it was screaming at them from the pulpit of United Trinity Church that he was a racist con. It was screaming at them that his 'awards' were shallow and empty with no substance to back them up, that his 'accomplishments' were nothing but sleazy gifts from self-serving profs and politicians and ward bosses, etc. It was there the whole damned time that Obama was nothing but smoke and mirrors - the mirrors reflecting the media's own bigotry and arrogance, while the smoke obscured Obama's sleaze, stupidity, duplicity, corruption and lies. It was there the whole damned time - yet only NOW the media is finally seeing it?

Damn, the media makes me sick.

:toast: :toast:
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
kbp

Carolyn says
Feb 26 2010, 11:54 AM
So the media is finally waking up NOW to the realization that Obama isn't fit to be President?

Damn! How f**king obvious could it have been two years ago that this 'community organizer' - who was too stupid to write his own biography, who cuddled up to a sleazy slumlord, who had never run a business in his entire life, had a racist 'God DAMN America!' minister for 20 years, had an unrepentant terrorist as a political mentor (not to mention a child molesting 'mentor' from his childhood in Hawaii) and, of course, had never done anything in office except to run for a higher one - was unfit to be President? I mean, what the hell was the matter with these media people? It was staring them in the face the entire time in 2008 - this man was nothing but a sleazy, grinning con who'd memorized a few glib phrases, talked about books he didn't understand and ideas he couldn't grasp and problems he'd never solved. This guy was nothing - he'd done nothing, he knew nothing, he'd accomplished nothing. And yet the media just tingled its leg and proclaimed that miraculously all this 'nothing' was going to turn into something the moment he took office on Jan. 20, 2009? Yes, if we all HOPED, this pig's ear would then CHANGE into a silk purse. Forget about asking for proof that he could do the job - we don't want no stinking proof, it was his dreams that counted. And now those dreams are turning into a nightmare and they're - surprised?

Oh, for Christ's sake. It was all there, it was staring the media in the face - hell, it was screaming at them from the pulpit of United Trinity Church that he was a racist con. It was screaming at them that his 'awards' were shallow and empty with no substance to back them up, that his 'accomplishments' were nothing but sleazy gifts from self-serving profs and politicians and ward bosses, etc. It was there the whole damned time that Obama was nothing but smoke and mirrors - the mirrors reflecting the media's own bigotry and arrogance, while the smoke obscured Obama's sleaze, stupidity, duplicity, corruption and lies. It was there the whole damned time - yet only NOW the media is finally seeing it?

Damn, the media makes me sick.

Yes we can!
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
« Previous Topic · LIESTOPPERS UNDERGROUND · Next Topic »
Add Reply