Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

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.

A good assumption, because it's not.

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:


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.

biccat wrote:

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.

A good assumption, because it's not.

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.

WWIII - India vs. Argentina!

Aid isn't really the same thing as foreign policy, it can of course be used as a bargaining chip though.

biccat wrote:
A good assumption, because it's not.

A good move.

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.

PhantomViper wrote:

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:

PhantomViper wrote:

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.

PhantomViper wrote:

CptJake wrote:

PhantomViper wrote:

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:
if you factor in private donations the US stomps other countries in terms of giving.

No, it actually doesn't, that is another myth perpetuated by your media: http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=2676

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.

Time will tell.

Frazzled wrote:Time will tell.

Frazzled for President!

If he wins I can pretty much garuntee that we won't be having this conversation two weeks after he steps into office.

If you do win, would you please bring back our old ways of dealing with the rest of the world?

Catyrpelius wrote:

Frazzled wrote:Time will tell.

Frazzled for President!

If he wins I can pretty much garuntee that we won't be having this conversation two weeks after he steps into office.

If you do win, would you please bring back our old ways of dealing with the rest of the world?

Frazzled foreign policy statement 1.00

CptJake wrote:

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!

By that he means we give countries foreign aid in an attempt to get them to do what we want them to do.

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.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

Frazzled wrote:
Frazzled foreign policy statement 1.00

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.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

Frazzled wrote:
Frazzled foreign policy statement 1.00

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!"

If nothing else, at least we got a good scandal out of this trip.



(Spelling error is not my creation )

Frazzled wrote:

Albatross wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

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!

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.

Albatross wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

Albatross wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

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!

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.

How can you get to be in the Secret Service without knowing better than to try to rip off a Colombian prostitute?

I thought everyone knew that.

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?

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.

dogma wrote:

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.

Frazzled wrote:

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!

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

Polvilhovoador wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

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!

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

No Argentina hate from moi.