(Reuters) - President Barack Obama patiently sat through diatribes, interruptions and even the occasional eye-ball roll at the weekend Summit of the Americas in an effort to win over Latin American leaders fed up with U.S. policies.
He failed.
The United States instead emerged from the summit in Colombia increasingly isolated as nearly 30 regional heads of state refused to sign a joint declaration in protest against the continued exclusion of communist-led Cuba from the event.
The rare show of unity highlights the steady decline of Washington's influence in a region that has become less dependent on U.S. trade and investment thanks to economic growth rates that are the envy of the developed world and new opportunities with China.
It also signals a further weakening of the already strained hemispheric system of diplomacy, built around the Organization of American States (OAS) which has struggled to remain relevant during a time of rapid change for its members.
Seen as an instrument of U.S. policy in Latin America during the Cold War, the OAS has lost ground in a region that is no longer content with being the backyard of the United States.
"It seems the United States still wants to isolate us from the world, it thinks it can still manipulate Latin America, but that's ending," said Bolivian President Evo Morales, a fierce critic of U.S. policy in Latin America and staunch ally of Venezuela's leftist leader Hugo Chavez.
"What I think is that this is a rebellion of Latin American countries against the United States."
NEWFOUND UNITY
In all fairness to Obama, the outcome had little to do with his conduct or even that of secret service agents whose indiscreet encounter with prostitutes in the beachside city of Cartagena, Colombia, overshadowed much of the proceedings.
He was in fact commended by several presidents for listening politely to political leaders, helping soften perception of U.S. officials as arrogant and domineering.
"I think it's the first time I've seen a president of the United States spend almost the entire summit sitting, listening to the all concerns of all countries," said Mexican President Felipe Calderon.
"This was a very valuable gesture by President Obama."
But Obama's staid charm was unable to paper over growing differences with the region.
Facing a tough re-election race this year, Obama had no room to compromise on the five-decade-old U.S. embargo on Cuba that is widely supported by conservatives in the United States, and particularly the anti-Castro exile community in Florida, a key state in a presidential vote.
U.S. insistence that Havana undertake democratic reforms before returning to the hemispheric family led to a clash with a united front of leftist and conservative governments that see Washington's policy toward Cuba as a relic of the Cold War.
The unexpected result was a diplomatic victory for Havana.
The newfound regional unity on Cuba may augur a growing willingness across the political spectrum to challenge the U.S. State Department on thorny issues for years considered taboo.
That could include insistence that the United States assume greater responsibility for reducing consumption of illegal narcotics as an alternative to the bloody war on drugs and its rising toll on Latin America.
"From the so-called Washington consensus ... toward a nascent consensus without Washington for a united Latin America," tweeted Venezuela's foreign ministry, referring to orthodox economic policies advocated by Washington in the 1990s.
NEW DIPLOMACY, NEW ECONOMY
The stark divide over Cuba - with 32 nations in favor of inviting it to future summits and only the United States and Canada opposed - will fuel arguments that the OAS is an outdated institution for regional diplomacy.
The OAS already faces competition from alternative forums such as the Union of South American nations (Unasur) and the Chavez-backed Community of Latin American and Caribbean states (Celac).
Despite the new winds blowing in regional diplomacy, economics is driving the changes as much as politics.
Once seen as monolithic block of basket-case economies dependent on U.S. support, Latin American countries are coveted investment destinations with sophisticated financial systems that have innovated in areas ranging from energy to aviation.
Chinese companies eager to pump oil, harvest soy and build badly needed infrastructure are showering them with offers of investment and financing.
With the U.S. economy still struggling to stay above water and foreign aid budgets seen dwindling, Washington has fewer sticks to brandish and fewer carrots to offer.
"This summit was a reminder, a wake-up call, that the traditional way of doing business vis-a-vis the region is eroding," said Geoff Thale, program director at the Washington Office on Latin America.
Republicans will no doubt attack Barack for this failure, but Obama can't carry the can for Reagan's policies. Besides, as the article says, Florida is a key state, its swing to Obama in the last election pretty much sealed the deal.
I can assure American members on this site of British support as the Latin American countries have been backing Argentina over the Falklands. So the dream team of London and Washington will continue.
Finally, American foreign policy might be a lot of things, but if these guys think the Chinese will be any better than the USA then they've been sampling too much of their own stuff!!
Without a dramatic, and conciliatory, change in US policy regarding Latin America the OAS will fall apart within 20 years. This would be bad, in my view, for much the same reason cited in the article: China.
The problem is that Florida stands in the way, and further that any hint that the US might not be a superpower anymore is perceived by the US electorate as weakness.
Its funny, actually, because when watching the most recent GoT in which Balon called Theon weak for preferring the solution which required less death I thought: "What an apt metaphor for the US."
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
I can assure American members on this site of British support as the Latin American countries have been backing Argentina over the Falklands. So the dream team of London and Washington will continue.
Chile are still on our side aren't they?
IIRC they detest Argentina to the utmost...
dogma wrote:Without a dramatic, and conciliatory, change in US policy regarding Latin America the OAS will fall apart within 20 years. This would be bad, in my view, for much the same reason cited in the article: China.
The problem is that Florida stands in the way, and further that any hint that the US might not be a superpower anymore is perceived by the US electorate as weakness.
e
Its funny, actually, because when watching the most recent GoT in which Balon called Theon weak for preferring the solution which required less death I thought: "What an apt metaphor for the US."
Yeah, as I recall from a republican debate I heard something along the lines of "Iranians using cuba to stage attacks/invasion of the US"....also I love how the Brits here all focused on the bit about the falklands(I didn't even see it the first time I read through the article).
Huffy wrote:Yeah, as I recall from a republican debate I heard something along the lines of "Iranians using cuba to stage attacks/invasion of the US"....also I love how the Brits here all focused on the bit about the falklands(I didn't even see it the first time I read through the article).
An Iranian attack on the US, far-fetched but sure, I guess it could happen. An Iranian invasion? Come on, how did whoever talking about this not get laughed off the stage? The entirety of Iran could fit comfortably in Alaska. We have 3 professional soldiers for every one of theirs currently enlisted; they're generally using technology 20 to 30 years behind us, their attack aircraft are Vietnam era; and for every dollar they spend on their military, we spend 61. It would be implausible for a Scyfy original movie, let alone as an actual possibility being bandied about by someone whom is being seriously considered by a substantial percentage of the country to be competent to be commander-in-chief.
Wait you mean the Mighty Iranian Pontoon boat navy is not a threat? How else can we justify refitting the mighty Alabama, New Jersey, Texas, and Missouri to cross the T on the Persian Menace?
Isn't it about time you guys eased up on Cuba? There's no Soviet nukes there and if you want to stop third parties becoming their next best friends, surely having a strong trade relationship with them would be the best thing? They need so much stuff it would give the US ecnomy a huge boost. I'm suprised no US Politician has looked at Cube, then Florida, wondered about the recession, but two & two together and gone "bingo!".
Exalted Pariah wrote:.....its our drug addicts that pay for their drug cartels bills/bullets...
In fairness it is America's inept and ill conceived 'war on drugs' that has led to tens of thousands of deaths in Latin America so that cuts both ways.
This is a sign of the times though, America's days as the premier world power are definitely numbered.
Wolfstan wrote:Isn't it about time you guys eased up on Cuba? There's no Soviet nukes there and if you want to stop third parties becoming their next best friends, surely having a strong trade relationship with them would be the best thing? They need so much stuff it would give the US ecnomy a huge boost. I'm suprised no US Politician has looked at Cube, then Florida, wondered about the recession, but two & two together and gone "bingo!".
He'll lose a lot of votes with the older generation of Cubans in Florida if he goes that route. Being so close to a port myself I'm sure it would help us out a lot though, but politics...meh.
Palindrome wrote: America's days as the premier world power are definitely numbered.
See, I'd disagree with that. The USA will remain the world's most powerful country for quite some time yet. What will change is that it will no longer be a unipolar world; for the last few decades or so, the USA has been unparalleled (given the decline of the USSR). That will definitely change. They will have more rivals in years to come, and less of a free hand.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Polvilhovoador wrote:
Mr Hyena wrote:Anything that hurts Argentina or annoys them is good. So...I'd side with America's current policy here.
Don't bully the hermanos man!
Hey! We're not bullying anyone, we just want to maintain the status quo. They're the ones who want to change it. We have a right to defend our interests, and every reason to be defensive considering the fact that they invaded the Falklands 30 years ago.
Mr Hyena wrote:Anything that hurts Argentina or annoys them is good. So...I'd side with America's current policy here.
Don't bully the hermanos man!
Don't assume that US policy is supportive of GB in this circumstance. I'm not saying I like it, I'm saying don't assume the old relationships are the same.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Wolfstan wrote:Isn't it about time you guys eased up on Cuba? There's no Soviet nukes there and if you want to stop third parties becoming their next best friends, surely having a strong trade relationship with them would be the best thing? They need so much stuff it would give the US ecnomy a huge boost. I'm suprised no US Politician has looked at Cube, then Florida, wondered about the recession, but two & two together and gone "bingo!".
I would have loved had he stood up and said he was dropping all trade and travel restrictions via executive order.
-course then he would have lost Florida...
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Palindrome wrote:
Exalted Pariah wrote:.....its our drug addicts that pay for their drug cartels bills/bullets...
In fairness it is America's inept and ill conceived 'war on drugs' that has led to tens of thousands of deaths in Latin America so that cuts both ways.
This is a sign of the times though, America's days as the premier world power are definitely numbered.
And you'll miss us. China is an altogether different super power.
Wolfstan wrote:Isn't it about time you guys eased up on Cuba? There's no Soviet nukes there and if you want to stop third parties becoming their next best friends, surely having a strong trade relationship with them would be the best thing? They need so much stuff it would give the US ecnomy a huge boost. I'm suprised no US Politician has looked at Cube, then Florida, wondered about the recession, but two & two together and gone "bingo!".
What does Cuba have to trade? Sugar prices in the US are already subsidized. They could build up a tourist industry, but the region already has a crap ton of that. No real boost to the US economy because Cuba can't afford US goods and services at a level to make a difference. Seriously, if Cuba had the means to be a player in world trade, they would not need the US as a trade partner. Between Russia and now Venezuela their economy is a subsidized disaster and has been since sugar prices tanked.
Frazzled wrote:
And you'll miss us. China is an altogether different super power.
Different? yes. Worse? debatable.
The world could do without superpowers entirely and its also highly unlikely that China will be in the position of dominance that the US has held for the last couple of decades.
Frazzled wrote:
And you'll miss us. China is an altogether different super power.
Different? yes. Worse? debatable.
Really. I'm sure China will help you with that Argentina thing and fully suppotrtive of the next Libya, just like how they are incredibly helpful insolving the Syria and Iran problems no?
Frazzled wrote:
And you'll miss us. China is an altogether different super power.
Different? yes. Worse? debatable.
Really. I'm sure China will help you with that Argentina thing and fully suppotrtive of the next Libya, just like how they are incredibly helpful insolving the Syria and Iran problems no?
Well, it's hard to get more fully supportive than "We're here to stay. Forever."
Frazzled wrote:
And you'll miss us. China is an altogether different super power.
Not really.
The only major distinction is that they don't pretend to endorse foreign democracy.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote:I'm sure China will help you with that Argentina thing and fully suppotrtive of the next Libya, just like how they are incredibly helpful insolving the Syria and Iran problems no?
Exalted Pariah wrote:I gotta agree with Latin america though, its our drug addicts that pay for their drug cartels bills/bullets...
And it's their government officials taking the bills from the drug cartels.
It's members of their military and police forces which moonlight as muscle for the cartels. Look at Los Zetas, as an example, to see what happens when trained military personnel realize that they can make oh so much more money trafficking in drugs than stopping them.
Thing is, down here we're not the piss poor countries we used to be, we're slowly developing our nations. I look at our neighbour Brazil with a healty envy, I lived there for about 2 years about 19 years ago and it was a hellish place, and look at them now... I wish my country went more on Brazil's path rather than Venezuela's.
Dark wrote:Sometimes one feels outta place 'ere /:
Thing is, down here we're not the piss poor countries we used to be, we're slowly developing our nations. I look at our neighbour Brazil with a healty envy, I lived there for about 2 years about 19 years ago and it was a hellish place, and look at them now... I wish my country went more on Brazil's path rather than Venezuela's.
Frazzled wrote:
And you'll miss us. China is an altogether different super power.
Different? yes. Worse? debatable.
Really. I'm sure China will help you with that Argentina thing and fully supportive of the next Libya, just like how they are incredibly helpful insolving the Syria and Iran problems no?
Its not as if the US is a force for all that is good in the world. Its foreign policy is completely self serving, just like ever other countries.
I'm not saying that China would be a better superpower than the US, there probably won't be all that much difference to be honest.
We also don't need any help with the Argentina thing as there really isn't an Argentina thing.
Mr Hyena wrote:Anything that hurts Argentina or annoys them is good. So...I'd side with America's current policy here.
Don't bully the hermanos man!
Don't assume that US policy is supportive of GB in this circumstance. I'm not saying I like it, I'm saying don't assume the old relationships are the same.
Frazzled, why are you pretending to speak for the US government?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Dark wrote:[color=Steelblue]Sometimes one feels outta place 'ere /:
Why? Speaking for myself, I don't have the slightest problem with the Argentinian people at all. Your government, on the other hand... Well, they're trying to pretend that the UK is encroaching on your territory, which is completely false, and just a nationalist sideshow to distract Argentinians from domestic issues. Just like last time. Unlike last time, their won't be war betwen our countries. The UK doesn't want it, and Argentina can't afford it.
Mr Hyena wrote:Anything that hurts Argentina or annoys them is good. So...I'd side with America's current policy here.
Don't bully the hermanos man!
Don't assume that US policy is supportive of GB in this circumstance. I'm not saying I like it, I'm saying don't assume the old relationships are the same.
Frazzled, why are you pretending to speak for the US government?
Don't be daft. I'm not. If I were the BBC would be abuzz with pics of parchuting girl scouts landing in Toronto, and US "special advisors" having made it to the Panama Canal by now. Manifest Destiny, this time its vertical!
IMO it's a myth that the USA is in decline. Sure, they've fallen on difficult times, but the right spark could galvanise them back into action.
As I've said before in 1900 there was only one country who could shift 100,000 men from England to south africa in under two months. In 2012 there is only one country who could shift 100,000 men from Texas to Tehran in under two weeks!!
All this talk of China and Brazil is neither here not there. These countries have impressive growth, but also deep rooted problems. Don't write off the USA just yet.
Frazzled wrote:Don't assume that US policy is supportive of GB in this circumstance. I'm not saying I like it, I'm saying don't assume the old relationships are the same.
SCOAMF wrote:“We’re going to remain neutral,” Obama said at a news conference with Colombian President Juan Manuel Santos. “This is not something that we typically intervene in”.
“We have good relations with Argentina and Britain and we hope they are capable of continuing the dialogue on the issue”, added Obama who on Saturday held a bilateral meeting with President Cristina Fernandez.
Also, in trying to refer to the Falklands as "Malvinas," he called them the "Maldives." I'm pretty sure Argentina hasn't claimed they have a right to the Maldives, but you never know.
Its not as if the US is a force for all that is good in the world. Its foreign policy is completely self serving, just like ever other countries.
I'm not saying that China would be a better superpower than the US, there probably won't be all that much difference to be honest.
Obviously there is some truth to your statement, but it isn't always true. The ammount of aid we gave for Tsunami relief, or to Haiti, or to a bunch of Caribean and Central American nations as disaster relief efforts really don't serve US interest at all, especially not in any proportion to the amount of resources spent, and in fact could be called a huge waste of resources. But we do it anyway because as a nation we seem to feel compelled to help when we can.
Frazzled wrote:Don't assume that US policy is supportive of GB in this circumstance. I'm not saying I like it, I'm saying don't assume the old relationships are the same.
SCOAMF wrote:“We’re going to remain neutral,” Obama said at a news conference with Colombian President Juan Manuel Santos. “This is not something that we typically intervene in”.
“We have good relations with Argentina and Britain and we hope they are capable of continuing the dialogue on the issue”, added Obama who on Saturday held a bilateral meeting with President Cristina Fernandez.
Also, in trying to refer to the Falklands as "Malvinas," he called them the "Maldives." I'm pretty sure Argentina hasn't claimed they have a right to the Maldives, but you never know.
Palindrome wrote:Aid isn't really the same thing as foreign policy, it can of course be used as a bargaining chip though.
Of COURSE it is a HUGE component of foreign policy. Look at how we are currently using aid/lack of aid to influence/punish the Norks, or the Egyptians, or a slew of other countries.
CptJake wrote:
Obviously there is some truth to your statement, but it isn't always true. The ammount of aid we gave for Tsunami relief, or to Haiti, or to a bunch of Caribean and Central American nations as disaster relief efforts really don't serve US interest at all, especially not in any proportion to the amount of resources spent, and in fact could be called a huge waste of resources. But we do it anyway because as a nation we seem to feel compelled to help when we can.
Except that if we compare GNP percentages, you are actually one of the least generous nations on Earth.
CptJake wrote:
Obviously there is some truth to your statement, but it isn't always true. The ammount of aid we gave for Tsunami relief, or to Haiti, or to a bunch of Caribean and Central American nations as disaster relief efforts really don't serve US interest at all, especially not in any proportion to the amount of resources spent, and in fact could be called a huge waste of resources. But we do it anyway because as a nation we seem to feel compelled to help when we can.
Except that if we compare GNP percentages, you are actually one of the least generous nations on Earth.
And? How does that affect my point that aid is a part of our foreign policy?
CptJake wrote:
Obviously there is some truth to your statement, but it isn't always true. The ammount of aid we gave for Tsunami relief, or to Haiti, or to a bunch of Caribean and Central American nations as disaster relief efforts really don't serve US interest at all, especially not in any proportion to the amount of resources spent, and in fact could be called a huge waste of resources. But we do it anyway because as a nation we seem to feel compelled to help when we can.
Except that if we compare GNP percentages, you are actually one of the least generous nations on Earth.
And? How does that affect my point that aid is a part of our foreign policy?
It doesn't. It actually supports it because the amount of aid that a given country distributes will generate good will towards that country from both the receiving country and the world community as well, potentially helping to further the foreign policy goals of the donor country.
My comment was in response to the "proportion to the amount of resources spent" and the "as a nation we seem to feel compelled to help when we can", when in fact, percentualy speaking, you help a whole lot less than you could if you wanted.
There is nothing wrong with being self serving, especially when you are talking about nations, but Americans seem to think of their country as a great world benefactor, spreading its wealth around those less fortunate, when in reality, you are one of the developed nations that contributes less to humanitarian and foreign aid causes.
CptJake wrote:
Obviously there is some truth to your statement, but it isn't always true. The ammount of aid we gave for Tsunami relief, or to Haiti, or to a bunch of Caribean and Central American nations as disaster relief efforts really don't serve US interest at all, especially not in any proportion to the amount of resources spent, and in fact could be called a huge waste of resources. But we do it anyway because as a nation we seem to feel compelled to help when we can.
Except that if we compare GNP percentages, you are actually one of the least generous nations on Earth.
And? How does that affect my point that aid is a part of our foreign policy?
It doesn't. It actually supports it because the amount of aid that a given country distributes will generate good will towards that country from both the receiving country and the world community as well, potentially helping to further the foreign policy goals of the donor country.
My comment was in response to the "proportion to the amount of resources spent" and the "as a nation we seem to feel compelled to help when we can", when in fact, percentualy speaking, you help a whole lot less than you could if you wanted.
There is nothing wrong with being self serving, especially when you are talking about nations, but Americans seem to think of their country as a great world benefactor, spreading its wealth around those less fortunate, when in reality, you are one of the developed nations that contributes less to humanitarian and foreign aid causes.
if you factor in private donations the US stomps other countries in terms of giving. this also does not count when we bust out the military to help - Us military to hait survivors, carriers to the Pacific post Tsunami etc. Didn't see a lot of China there.
Frazzled wrote:
this also does not count when we bust out the military to help - Us military to hait survivors, carriers to the Pacific post Tsunami etc. Didn't see a lot of China there.
"Military aid" is a drop in the ocean when you translate it to actual monetary value, also most other countries also do this when they have military resources in the affected regions.
And what does China has to do with anything? I didn't mention China in any of my posts and neither did CptJake AFAIK. But if it makes you feel better: yes, I believe that the US helps more than comunist China...
Frazzled wrote:
if you factor in private donations the US stomps other countries in terms of giving.
No, not at all. The statistics that support that conclusion turn on US NPOs only being supported by US citizens, which is a stupid assumption that anyone should be able to see through.
As a percentage of GDP the US gives at a rate that places in the bottom half of the top 25, usually around 15-20.
That being said, that this is a political issue is hilarious. Its like a contest between people that want to see us as evil, and people that can't fathom we're not good.
Palindrome wrote:Aid isn't really the same thing as foreign policy, it can of course be used as a bargaining chip though.
Of COURSE it is a HUGE component of foreign policy. Look at how we are currently using aid/lack of aid to influence/punish the Norks, or the Egyptians, or a slew of other countries.
That really depends on what exactly you mean by foreign policy doesn't it. Look I can use facepalm smileys to!
Obama's foreign policy can be summed up as a series of grandstands and opposing cave-ins in a sequence that causes all of the United States' partners to want to wait until Obama is gone before trying to formulate any concrete policy for future relations.
So far I cannot find any exception to the rule except France, which has wisely steered itself into a position where Obama has been ring fenced into a position where he can have little cause to get cold feet.
Actually a slight rewording on a historical quote from Genghis Khan. Following a foreign policy with a proven track record is a fairly shrewd move, suspiciously wise for Frazzie. I am pretty sure it was the choice of his canine advisors, and that they bark approvingly and give knowing looks when this clip comes up.
Orlanth wrote:Obama's foreign policy can be summed up as a series of grandstands and opposing cave-ins in a sequence that causes all of the United States' partners to want to wait until Obama is gone before trying to formulate any concrete policy for future relations.
So far I cannot find any exception to the rule except France, which has wisely steered itself into a position where Obama has been ring fenced into a position where he can have little cause to get cold feet.
Actually a slight rewording on a historical quote from Genghis Khan. Following a foreign policy with a proven track record is a fairly shrewd move, suspiciously wise for Frazzie. I am pretty sure it was the choice of his canine advisors, and that they bark approvingly and give knowing looks when this clip comes up.
Orlanth is correct on all counts. Genghis Connie can quote this to you as a Frazzled favorite quote, including such other hits as "win or you're out the family," "do or do not, there is no try," and of course the immortal "get off my lawn you punk kids!"
Mr Hyena wrote:Anything that hurts Argentina or annoys them is good. So...I'd side with America's current policy here.
Don't bully the hermanos man!
Don't assume that US policy is supportive of GB in this circumstance. I'm not saying I like it, I'm saying don't assume the old relationships are the same.
Frazzled, why are you pretending to speak for the US government?
Don't be daft. I'm not.
Ah, my mistake. I can see now that you were referring to what Obama said on the issue recently.
I must say, Obama seems to be making a habit of trying to keep everyone sweet, and actually achieving the opposite effect instead. By coming out and saying that he's neutral on the issue, which on the face of it seems sensible, all he's actually doing is refusing to support either side - the UK, who's troops have bled along side the US' in Iraq, Afghanistan and probably will in Iran, and Argentina who feel that they have a legitimate claim to the Falklands (they don't), and who also enjoy the support of the vast majority (on paper) of South American nations. Basically, the UK feels betrayed, and Argentina feels ignored. Awesome. I used to sympathise somewhat with Obama - he's pretty much on a hiding to nothing, after all - but I'm starting to come round to the idea that he's a slippery fether that doesn't really stand for anything.
Nevertheless, should the diplomatic row over the Falklands 'go hot', I can't see him remaining 'neutral' for very long, as for war to break out, Argentina would have to attack sovereign UK territory. I'm not saying that he'd commit troops or even offer material assistance, because I don't think he would, nor would the UK ask for, or want it, IMO. However, he'd definitely side with us, no question. He can't really afford to betray his biggest ally - that'd be a big black mark on his character in the eyes of the electorate. Well, outside of Boston, anyway.
Mr Hyena wrote:Anything that hurts Argentina or annoys them is good. So...I'd side with America's current policy here.
Don't bully the hermanos man!
Don't assume that US policy is supportive of GB in this circumstance. I'm not saying I like it, I'm saying don't assume the old relationships are the same.
Frazzled, why are you pretending to speak for the US government?
Don't be daft. I'm not.
Ah, my mistake. I can see now that you were referring to what Obama said on the issue recently.
I must say, Obama seems to be making a habit of trying to keep everyone sweet, and actually achieving the opposite effect instead. By coming out and saying that he's neutral on the issue, which on the face of it seems sensible, all he's actually doing is refusing to support either side - the UK, who's troops have bled along side the US' in Iraq, Afghanistan and probably will in Iran, and Argentina who feel that they have a legitimate claim to the Falklands (they don't), and who also enjoy the support of the vast majority (on paper) of South American nations. Basically, the UK feels betrayed, and Argentina feels ignored. Awesome. I used to sympathise somewhat with Obama - he's pretty much on a hiding to nothing, after all - but I'm starting to come round to the idea that he's a slippery fether that doesn't really stand for anything.
Nevertheless, should the diplomatic row over the Falklands 'go hot', I can't see him remaining 'neutral' for very long, as for war to break out, Argentina would have to attack sovereign UK territory. I'm not saying that he'd commit troops or even offer material assistance, because I don't think he would, nor would the UK ask for, or want it, IMO. However, he'd definitely side with us, no question. He can't really afford to betray his biggest ally - that'd be a big black mark on his character in the eyes of the electorate. Well, outside of Boston, anyway.
Why do you think he thinks the UK is the US's biggest ally? I'm not agreeing with that statement. I am just asking what past history of the Obama Presidency supports this statement?
Orlanth wrote:Following a foreign policy with a proven track record is a fairly shrewd move, suspiciously wise for Frazzie.
No, not really, not when conditions have been fundamentally altered. The Bush Administration got in trouble for trying to follow what was, essentially, Clinton's foreign policy mixed with a bit of Reagan era bravado. It certainly would have worked for Clinton, and Reagan, but Bush was neither Clinton nor Reagan and the world had changed significantly in the ensuing time; as had the conflicts.
People that tell you that, because something worked in the past, its an intrinsically good idea to keep on the course should be ignored.
Frazzled wrote:I am just asking what past history of the Obama Presidency supports this statement?
Trade relations, NATO, the historical cultural connection, basically everything that has always made the UK the closest US ally.
Just because we don't regard them to be as close an ally as they were, does not mean they're not still our closest ally.
Hell, I'll be honest, the only person I've seen argue that the US has somehow betrayed the UK is Orlanth, and he's cartoonishly sensationalist when it comes to FP.
Frazzled wrote:None of those are Obama's actions. What has HE done that would make you think he views the UK as the US ally primus?
No, he didn't initiate them, but he hasn't left NATO, broken off trade, ended intelligence sharing, or a host of other things that could have been done.
Again, the fact that the UK isn't as important as it used to be, doesn't mean its still not the most important.
The age in which 1 country can be regarded as indispensable is long gone.
Frazzled wrote:None of those are Obama's actions. What has HE done that would make you think he views the UK as the US ally primus?
No, he didn't initiate them, but he hasn't left NATO, broken off trade, ended intelligence sharing, or a host of other things that could have been done.
Again, the fact that the UK isn't as important as it used to be, doesn't mean its still not the most important.
The age in which 1 country can be regarded as indispensable is long gone.
I'd argue at least three countries are more important to the US than the UK as an ally, just off the top of my head: Canada, Mexico, and Brazil. I'd put the UK at in the top 10 maybe.
Mr Hyena wrote:Anything that hurts Argentina or annoys them is good. So...I'd side with America's current policy here.
Don't bully the hermanos man!
Don't assume that US policy is supportive of GB in this circumstance. I'm not saying I like it, I'm saying don't assume the old relationships are the same.
I assume nothing, I was just objecting to the Argentina hate
Mr Hyena wrote:Anything that hurts Argentina or annoys them is good. So...I'd side with America's current policy here.
Don't bully the hermanos man!
Don't assume that US policy is supportive of GB in this circumstance. I'm not saying I like it, I'm saying don't assume the old relationships are the same.
I assume nothing, I was just objecting to the Argentina hate
Frazzled wrote:
I'd argue at least three countries are more important to the US than the UK as an ally, just off the top of my head: Canada, Mexico, and Brazil. I'd put the UK at in the top 10 maybe.
I think its trending that way, but the day hasn't quite arrived.
Mind you, I also think that it should trend that way, especially as regards Canada.
Canada makes sense, Brazil is one for the future, but Mexico? Frazzled has advocated military action towards Mexico on a regular basis. It seems odd that he would consider them one of the US's closest allies.
It's also worth pointing out that the UK is the only one of those countries with a permanent seat on the UN security council, nuclear weapons, and the military capability to provide material assistance pretty much anywhere in the world, in addition to being the US' largest single investor.
Regardless, the old relationships ARE changing, no argument - the UK is starting to move closer to India (and to a lesser degree, China), which in my opinion is a good thing, particularly with Obama in the White House.
Frazzled wrote:
I'd argue at least three countries are more important to the US than the UK as an ally, just off the top of my head: Canada, Mexico, and Brazil. I'd put the UK at in the top 10 maybe.
I think its trending that way, but the day hasn't quite arrived.
Mind you, I also think that it should trend that way, especially as regards Canada.
The colonies are surpassing the motherland.
OH CANADUH LAND OF MY TIM HORTON'S DOOOONUTS!
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Albatross wrote:Canada makes sense, Brazil is one for the future, but Mexico? Frazzled has advocated military action towards Mexico on a regular basis. It seems odd that he would consider them one of the US's closest allies.
It's also worth pointing out that the UK is the only one of those countries with a permanent seat on the UN security council, nuclear weapons, and the military capability to provide material assistance pretty much anywhere in the world, in addition to being the US' largest single investor.
Regardless, the old relationships ARE changing, no argument - the UK is starting to move closer to India (and to a lesser degree, China), which in my opinion is a good thing, particularly with Obama in the White House.
Well in my defense we only had one war with Mexico. We had two with you guys.
Albatross wrote:Yeah, but we're not being torn apart by drug-wars right on your border...
True that.
Wouldn't it be refreshing, if the Federal government got its mits out of the illegal prison industrial complex and let the states decide whats illegal and whats legal.
Albatross wrote:
Regardless, the old relationships ARE changing, no argument - the UK is starting to move closer to India (and to a lesser degree, China), which in my opinion is a good thing, particularly with Obama in the White House.
But with your surplus of Sammy Braddy, all bets are off.
Nevertheless, should the diplomatic row over the Falklands 'go hot', I can't see him remaining 'neutral' for very long, as for war to break out, Argentina would have to attack sovereign UK territory. I'm not saying that he'd commit troops or even offer material assistance, because I don't think he would, nor would the UK ask for, or want it, IMO. However, he'd definitely side with us, no question. He can't really afford to betray his biggest ally - that'd be a big black mark on his character in the eyes of the electorate. Well, outside of Boston, anyway.
Don't count on it.
Obama doesn't like the UK very much, and will have little personal motivator to come to our aid.
Second he wont get around the bugbear of 'Hispanic Vote', actually I do not think Hispanics in the US care about the 'Malvinas', but Obama has over the last four years mistrod so many times to avoid perceived cultural divisions in the US he has on many occasions overcompensated for factors that aren't there.
Third he will get less personal critique by sitting and reading the newspaper than doing things that will put him on the newspaper, and with Obama, what is good for Obama is what matters, everything else is a very distant second.
This is mitigated if Argentina attacks in a second term, which hints to a dwindling window of opportunity. If Argentina wanted to make a play they should have attacked in 2009, while we still had Gordon Brown and the US had Obama.
Dark wrote:We do (and I'm in the army since 2005), we'd go, we'd see and we'd conquer...
So has any of your gear actually been upgraded in any meaningful way since the last time your lads got thrashed? Because that's not what I'm hearing - I watched a documentary on this just the other day and well, let's just say the outlook isn't great for any future Argentine attempt on the Falklands. Aren't all the planes and ships basically the same as 30 years ago? Mate, seriously now - if war breaks out, leave the military. It will not end well for you guys.
Even with all the talk of cuts to the UK military, Britain still spends 8x more on it than Argentina....
Automatically Appended Next Post:
PhantomViper wrote:The best beef in the world vs fried fish and warm beer...
If that was the contest, then the island inhabitants would better start investing in some Spanish lessons!
Wait, what is Portugal famous for again? Ah yes, Nando's, Bankruptcy and being next to a good country.
Wait, what is Portugal famous for again? Ah yes, Nando's, Bankruptcy and being next to a good country.
I think you missed a few posts were I offered the civilized alternative of manly battle on Iron Chef. You also seem to have gotten confused between Argentina and Portugal.
Albatross wrote:
Wait, what is Portugal famous for again?
Being good stalwart friends to the UK with solid reliable mutual support, it is the longest serving alliance in human history.
Portugal has watched our back many times, and vice versa.
I'm struggling to think of the last time the Chinese dragged us all over the world fighting a bunch of people we didn't need to
As to the US position on the islands - how can there be a continuation of disussions when there is absolutely nothing to discuss? The islanders have asked to stay on Team GB and we are happy to have them. I'm pretty sure at least one of the wars we have been dragged into by America recently was to enable people to live safe and determine their own futures. Or was it because someone with a beard blew up some buildings? Or because there might be WMD's? Or was it to secure some oil? Or was it just for lols?
I can't remember any more. But hey, at least you can give some small and insignificant token of appreciation to your biggest supporters in the world by telling the Argies to stop being so sil... Oh, wait, you can't even do that...
SilverMK2 wrote:I'm struggling to think of the last time the Chinese dragged us all over the world fighting a bunch of people we didn't need to
As to the US position on the islands - how can there be a continuation of disussions when there is absolutely nothing to discuss? The islanders have asked to stay on Team GB and we are happy to have them. I'm pretty sure at least one of the wars we have been dragged into by America recently was to enable people to live safe and determine their own futures. Or was it because someone with a beard blew up some buildings? Or because there might be WMD's? Or was it to secure some oil? Or was it just for lols?
I can't remember any more. But hey, at least you can give some small and insignificant token of appreciation to your biggest supporters in the world by telling the Argies to stop being so sil... Oh, wait, you can't even do that...
Hey don't blame me. I voted for the other guy. You Euros are stil infatuated with him not me.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ahtman wrote:
Orlanth wrote:longest serving alliance in human history
That is incorrect. The Human/Wiener Dog alliance goes back much further.
And I quote TBone: "Damn straight. All your flavorful snackie treats are belong to us!"
AustonT wrote:I'm eagerly anticipating Falklands 2. Pretty sure the Argies are going to get waxed without ever making it to "Maldives"
So am I
We can go there and settle it up with a 40K game? I'd need to hurry and paint my stuff.
I believe that the British normally settle up with bridge or backgammon or some nonsense.
I sincerely hope that your government stops playing crazy politics about the Falklands before war breaks out, but I see little realistic hope. The limeys on the other hand need a short victorious war; in all honesty the Brits will probably wait until their carrier commissions. In the year prior to that expect the Argie gov to start agitating either war or trying to convince the UN to just give the FI to the Argies by non binding resolution.
It's a mess and any way you swing it the Argies will get stomped, the only question is how long will it take and how bad will it be.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Frazz: epic is for "massive" Armies it says so on the box. FI2 would be more like 40k in 40 minutes
Actually, it's funny how the world gets worked up, when this is just bravado from our president to keep people here too busy lookin' at the Malvinas while her minions put their hands in our pockets.
I won't start an historical debate about who's the real owner, because this post it's not the place either, but I guess I can talk about this in a civilized way, in private. I came here to meet fellow wargamers, not to pick up internet fights
Dark wrote:Actually, it's funny how the world gets worked up, when this is just bravado from our president to keep people here too busy lookin' at the Malvinas while her minions put their hands in our pockets.
I won't start an historical debate about who's the real owner, because this post it's not the place either, but I guess I can talk about this in a civilized way, in private. I came here to meet fellow wargamers, not to pick up internet fights
As an academic, I would not mind a civilised discussion on the affair via PM, if you'd be interested.
Dark wrote:to keep people here too busy lookin' at the Malvinas
Although why she doesn't use a real place to distract the people with (such as the Falklands Islands) rather than some imaginary non-existant place called "Malvinas" is beyond me
Dark wrote:Actually, it's funny how the world gets worked up, when this is just bravado from our president to keep people here too busy lookin' at the Malvinas while her minions put their hands in our pockets.
Wait, what is Portugal famous for again? Ah yes, Nando's, Bankruptcy and being next to a good country.
I think you missed a few posts were I offered the civilized alternative of manly battle on Iron Chef. You also seem to have gotten confused between Argentina and Portugal.
Orlanth wrote:longest serving alliance in human history
That is incorrect. The Human/Wiener Dog alliance goes back much further.
And I quote TBone: "Damn straight. All your flavorful snackie treats are belong to us!"
It goes straight back to...Germany!
Frazzled, Neo-Wiener overlord.
Corrected your typo.
Speaking of. TBone's latest maneuver - yesterday afternoon. He thought I was giving the big dog a treat (heartworm preventative). When I wouldn't give it to him he walked over, barked at me, and peed on my blue jeans shirt I had draped over the kitchen chair. Wow. thats some kind of donkey-cave.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Easy E wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
Wait, what is Portugal famous for again? Ah yes, Nando's, Bankruptcy and being next to a good country.
I think you missed a few posts were I offered the civilized alternative of manly battle on Iron Chef. You also seem to have gotten confused between Argentina and Portugal.
