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.

@JEB - I wasn't trolling, just 'friendly banter' - don't be hyper-sensitive. Or patronising.

I understand your reasons, but I disagree with them. You often seem to take this tack when people disagree with you.
Obama should have refused to bow to the Japanese Emperor when visiting Japan? What, because of 'classical liberalism'? Where in the canon of enlightenment literature does it say anything about disrespecting foreign leaders? Anyway, we don't live in that era any more - as you are no doubt aware, the world is a different place now.
Would Americans have appreciated it if our Queen had refused to shake Obamas hand? This is nothing to do with revolutionary philosophy or principles, you can dress it up however you like, but it's just arrogance that is driving this outcry.

JEB_Stuart wrote:Ok, so I explain why I am against it, and why many Americans are upset about it. I even give a damn good academic explanation, which is my reason for disapproving, and you still don't get it. Are you just intentionally ignoring my reasons, or do you just not understand reason?

But you understand that in Japan bowing, and then being bowed to, is equivalent to shaking hands? Just like in the middle east holding hands is quite different to how it is perceived here. Bush respected that, and when he went he held hands with Prince Abdulluh.

You're in their country, you use their method of recognising mutual respect. Bush did it, Obama did it.

The only way I could see anyone being genuinely concerned by this is if Obama was required to bow, and no similar gesture was made in return, but none of that happened.

What is important to remember is that the Emperor bowed to Obama as well and that isn't supposed to happen either.

It was two leaders according each other a polite greeting. Nothing more.

Albatross wrote:but it's just arrogance that is driving this outcry.

It isn't arrogance, it's talking point politics driving this thing. The role of opposition is to attack every little thing the President does.

If Obama hadn't bowed we'd have talking heads complaining about Obama's arrogance.

sebster wrote:But you understand that in Japan bowing, and then being bowed to, is equivalent to shaking hands? Just like in the middle east holding hands is quite different to how it is perceived here. Bush respected that, and when he went he held hands with Prince Abdulluh.

You're in their country, you use their method of recognising mutual respect. Bush did it, Obama did it.

The only way I could see anyone being genuinely concerned by this is if Obama was required to bow, and no similar gesture was made in return, but none of that happened.

Yes sebster, I understand his reasoning, but that doesn't mean I have to agree with it or like it. Even the State Department suggested hand shaking. And this isn't the first time he has done this, he bowed to King Abdulluh, and no bow was returned. That happened earlier this year. I am just stating that American presidents don't bow because of our own standards on human value and equality. It is a tradition that is as old as the presidency itself, and I don't like people just blowing stuff like that off.

Bah, look at me, I am tired and grouchy...I will deal with this later....

Can you understand why I believe what I do?

I get what your saying.

Overall though, I think that showing the ability to respect our allies, on both our terms and theirs combined; is a good idea. It is not exactly like President Obama has been bowing to everyone he meets on his trips. If their were a culture that had a custom, where the greeting was to rub butts or something, sure; what Bush Jr. did fell closer to that category in my book.

In some ways, I do think that the Republican talking points mainly focus on, no necessarily ignoring past Presidents of their own parties; just setting them to the side occasionally. Democrats do similar stuff though, especially during elections.

All of this just makes me think of Rudy Giuliani though... forgetting (reformatting?) what he just had for lunch... .

JEB_Stuart wrote:While I agree that Pakistan is involved, that was poor wording on my part, he shouldn't be bombing it. By killing innocent civilians, he is only contributing to the "Let's feth Team America" bandawagon

I'll say that civilian casualties should be avoided, but I'm not one to take a huge interest in innocence in this type of terrain situation. There isn't much on the northern border of Pakistan besides Pashtun tribes, and Pakistani/Afghani/Taliban rebels. Its certainly not as if bombs are raining down on Islamabad, or Karachi. Not exactly razor logic, but you don't get that when you operate on the other side of a planet in what is essentially a mountainous wasteland.

It should also be pointed out that Pakistan has complied with this arrangement; albeit with substantial reservation.

JEB_Stuart wrote:
Agreed again, but I was merely pointing out his involvement in a protracted conflict that he pledged to end. It was a retort to MGS blanket criticism on the Bush Administration

If I recall correctly, and I might not, he pledged to end Iraq (which was still foolish, we'll be there for some time now that our lease on Prince Sultan is up), not Afghanistan. I think he actually claimed that he would place a greater emphasis on that conflict.

There's also the bit about ending wars frequently involving a greater emphasis on finishing them. Of course, no one ever stops to think about that, they just hear what they want.

JEB_Stuart wrote:
Symbolism is more important than any of you realize...

Its exactly as important as you make it out to be, which turns out to be quite a lot in the course conversations in the peanut gallery. The thing is that most people know nothing about international politics, or politics in general for that matter, and so they are placated and engaged with gestures made in the public fora. The bow was such a gesture, and it was a poor one given America's traditionally bluster-filled self image. It was something bound to cause a great deal of nonsensical conversation, and that isn't anything a controversial leader should seek to curry. However, its important to distinguish between a gesture to the mob, and a gesture of policy. This bow was the former, and had no affect on our actual position with respect to Japan, China, Iran, or any other nation.

JEB_Stuart wrote:
That is a matter of speculation, and I think they would have supported him in declining the award...but that is again a matter of speculation...

An Obama decline reported by Fox would have played out exactly as a Bush decline reported by MSNBC: either outright condemnation, or a backhanded attack.

JEB_Stuart wrote:I am just stating that American presidents don't bow because of our own standards on human value and equality.

It will be interesting to see how the rules of diplomacy are affected by the ubiquity of public media. All these people in the world will be required to revisit the actual significance of their conventional gestures. That, or statesmen will stand perfectly still during greetings.

The point to remember is that the purpose of a Presidential visit to an ally is to cement relations between the allies, not with the US electorate.

Honestly. Whats the big deal? A bow is just a polite greeting over there. Nothing more. If Bush did it, then FOX et al wouldnt even mention it. Its absurd that people are getting uppity about it.

He bowed, the Japanese dude bowed. Thats it.

feth me.. you'd think Obama prostrated himself on the floor like ala Waynes World when they met Alice Cooper.


Its a cheap poltical shot, by Repulicans to spread disinformation about a candidate they dont like.

And before you all jump on and call me a liberal. I rather dislike Obama, if Mcain, a man i genuinely like, had picked a better running mate, then id have actually prefered him to win. But this is being blown out of all proportion.

I am just stating that American presidents don't bow because of our own standards on human value and equality.

Fair enough, but those are ideals - I'm sure I don't have to point out the difference between ideals and actions, especially with regard to the recent alleged kidnap/torture/imprisonment without trial/general human rights abuses furore involving both the USA and UK. Perhaps they are noble ideals to hold, but reality often requires a fair amount of compromise.

MeanGreenStompa wrote:

Albatross wrote:

this bow spits in the face of over 200 years of tradition and attitude.

Wow! 200 years! That's.....forever.

The Pub next to my house is older than that.

Listen saxon... The town I grew up in was trading tin with the Phoenicians when Rome was a collection of mud hut farms on a hill and your people were still getting owned by terror birds and dire otters. What's your point?

(see, i can be nationalistically insensitive as well! )

...and waits for someone from China to show up and piss on everyone's chips...

Wussy. I REMEMBER trading tin with the Phoenicians. What a bunch of sharks, but man they could throw a party like no one's business. I remember when Altluck the Caanite had a birthday party and invited his cousin from Phoenicia. He brought like fifteen score of wine jars. Wee hew!




Automatically Appended Next Post:
Meanwhile back at the Hall of Justice:
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/Survey-finds-only-43-percent-would-re-elect-Obama-now-70307497.html

Survey finds only 43 percent would re-elect Obama now
By: Mark Tapscott
Editorial Page Editor
11/17/09 5:03 PM EST
Only 43 percent of voters surveyed by the Zogby/O'Leary Poll would vote for President Obama less than a year after he was elected, or about the same level of support President Clinton won in 1992 in a three-way race with the first President Bush and former EDS executive and national political gadfly Ross Perot.

Perhaps even more worrisome for the president is that only 37 percent of independents queried in the survey said they would support Obama. That figure appears to be consistent with exit polling following the Virginia and New Jersey governorship races which indicated a seismic shift among independents away from Obama and to Republican candidates Bob McDonnell and Chris Christie.

And on the question of trust, Obama also fell far short of his performance during the 2008 presidential race. A year later, Zogby/O'Leary find that 42 percent of voters say they do not trust the Obama White House “at all” to gain passage in Congress of legislation that will create new jobs in 2010, and another 11 percent say they don't have much trust that the president can succeed on that score.

The survey is conducted by pollster Brad O'Leary in conjunction with Zogby International.

“President Obama’s popularity with the voting public has been eroding for some time, but these numbers really drive home the point,” said O’Leary. “Most voters don’t trust the president on the number one issue of the day, job creation. On top of that, a surprising plurality of voters, and Independent voters in particular, don’t side with President Obama on the number one issue to him: whether or not he should be President.”

Again, survey worth dirt. I make those things, you can manipulate the questions to generate any answer you want.

If only 43% are saying they'd vote for him, I'd suggest given that the honeymoon is long past and he's still got a sizeable level of support. I actually think that's a pretty good recorded figure of continued endorsement. Also just how many of those 'voters' actually bother to vote, where did the poll take place? What was the ethnic breakdown of those polled? What day of the week was it? Was it a sunny day?

Surveys, despite the fact my masters keep making me run them, mean jack gak.

Likely voters are much lower actually. I don't post Rasmussen because its been low for a fair while. Other polls came out this morning that he's under 50% for the first time.

Like many US presidents, he's becoming more liked abroad then at home.

@MGS - Hey! Who are you calling a Saxon? I'm an Ulsterman (sort of).

You silly mammals.