With Friends Like the US Who Needs Enemies?

#3
when will the american conservatives understand that it was the last administration that created the whole mess.
 
#4
Proper_Gander said:
when will the american conservatives understand that it was the last administration that created the whole mess.
Actually if you take the time to research your rather broad assertion you will find that while perhaps Republicans suffer from such blindness, many conservatives (I realiz(s)e some usually conflate the too and hence the confusion) do not and have given credit where it is due in terms of some of the foibles of the evil GWB (of course probably not to the universal extent some of progressives see). I also think at some point even the current administration and its progressive supporters and handlers will realize that the American people and perhaps others around the world see through this convenient blame game and understand that there are in fact things for which it is responsible and should be rightly held accountable.
 
#7
As I recall it was Mr Obama's rhetoric during the first few months of his presidency which declared an open season on Israel. Perhaps he thought that it would offer a solution to America's problems in the Middle East during his first term. That would say quite a lot about about the mind of the President.

B
 
#8
Sent a strongly worded message to the governor of Louisiana in protest at the desecration of our national flag by a bunch of jumped up rednecks who think that BP is a british company, my sister in Wisconsin doubts very much that i will receive a response, but what the hell! :x
 
#9
I think perhaps part of the problem, is the differences between the policies between Ob and GWB - the sudden change doesn't make people feel comfortable, they're not exactly sure where they stand... but many in Europe do think the GWB was a disaster for the world
 
#11
The most noticeable flaw in this argument is that one of the three main tenants of his argument - that Obama is to blame for the failure of the "special relationship" - is bunk.

The "special relationship" has, since the second world war, been a method for the British to feel satisfied with their relegated role under US hegemony. It's a psychological sop used by US leaders to placate the British. No matter how many American politicians declaim that British views are important to them when the chips come down Britain will be left up the small stream without a propulsion system.

The Author links criticism of Israel implicitly with criticism of the USA; he doesn't seem to realise one can be extremely critical of Israel and yet support US foreign policy. The Author also does not understand the vocabulary of the current conflict. He criticises the National Security Strategy for declaring a conflict with T"Al Qaeda and its affiliates." instead of, say, "Jihadis". Jihad is something ALL muslims do, it merely means "struggle", to be in conflict with "Jihadis" would mean to be in conflict with Islam itself, which given its following of over a billion would probably be a bad idea.

Sorry JJH, but this article really doesn't cut it.
 

FORMER_FYRDMAN

LE
Book Reviewer
#12
ouyin said:
The most noticeable flaw in this argument is that one of the three main tenants of his argument - that Obama is to blame for the failure of the "special relationship" - is bunk.

The "special relationship" has, since the second world war, been a method for the British to feel satisfied with their relegated role under US hegemony. It's a psychological sop used by US leaders to placate the British. No matter how many American politicians declaim that British views are important to them when the chips come down Britain will be left up the small stream without a propulsion system.

The Author links criticism of Israel implicitly with criticism of the USA; he doesn't seem to realise one can be extremely critical of Israel and yet support US foreign policy. The Author also does not understand the vocabulary of the current conflict. He criticises the National Security Strategy for declaring a conflict with T"Al Qaeda and its affiliates." instead of, say, "Jihadis". Jihad is something ALL muslims do, it merely means "struggle", to be in conflict with "Jihadis" would mean to be in conflict with Islam itself, which given its following of over a billion would probably be a bad idea.

Sorry JJH, but this article really doesn't cut it.
If you're correct about the Special Relationship, why did the US seriously compromise its South American policy to support the UK over the Falklands the last time they had a decent POTUS? The relationship exists, not least because of ties of culture and language, it just works at a more subtle level than both sides simply supporting everything the other side does (unless you're Blair of course, in which case that's exactly how it works, at least on the British side).

As for your 'Jihadi' point, that's just semantic tosh. The sooner the concept of Jihad is vilified in the same way that racism and other 'isms' are and the word becomes unacceptable in public use, the sooner we'll get back to some sort of sanity. We're in a war of ideas and language is a critical weapon - when we start effectively denying them their inflammatory verbiage, we'll know we've started to win - Orwell articulated as much about a different ideological enemy and he was right.

Good article, thanks JJH.
 
#14
revmodes said:
Sent a strongly worded message to the governor of Louisiana in protest at the desecration of our national flag by a bunch of jumped up rednecks who think that BP is a british company, my sister in Wisconsin doubts very much that i will receive a response, but what the hell! :x
May we see a copy of this message? If you'd prefer a P.M then fine.
 
#15
FORMER_FYRDMAN said:
ouyin said:
The most noticeable flaw in this argument is that one of the three main tenants of his argument - that Obama is to blame for the failure of the "special relationship" - is bunk.

The "special relationship" has, since the second world war, been a method for the British to feel satisfied with their relegated role under US hegemony. It's a psychological sop used by US leaders to placate the British. No matter how many American politicians declaim that British views are important to them when the chips come down Britain will be left up the small stream without a propulsion system.

The Author links criticism of Israel implicitly with criticism of the USA; he doesn't seem to realise one can be extremely critical of Israel and yet support US foreign policy. The Author also does not understand the vocabulary of the current conflict. He criticises the National Security Strategy for declaring a conflict with T"Al Qaeda and its affiliates." instead of, say, "Jihadis". Jihad is something ALL muslims do, it merely means "struggle", to be in conflict with "Jihadis" would mean to be in conflict with Islam itself, which given its following of over a billion would probably be a bad idea.

Sorry JJH, but this article really doesn't cut it.
If you're correct about the Special Relationship, why did the US seriously compromise its South American policy to support the UK over the Falklands the last time they had a decent POTUS? The relationship exists, not least because of ties of culture and language, it just works at a more subtle level than both sides simply supporting everything the other side does (unless you're Blair of course, in which case that's exactly how it works, at least on the British side).

As for your 'Jihadi' point, that's just semantic tosh. The sooner the concept of Jihad is vilified in the same way that racism and other 'isms' are and the word becomes unacceptable in public use, the sooner we'll get back to some sort of sanity. We're in a war of ideas and language is a critical weapon - when we start effectively denying them their inflammatory verbiage, we'll know we've started to win - Orwell articulated as much about a different ideological enemy and he was right.

Good article, thanks JJH.
1) A good example from the 1980's which to a certain extent invalidates my argument. However, I still believe the personal relationship between Reagan and Thatcher was more important then any inherent "special relationship". Bear in mind there was a significant faction in the US government who wanted to back Argentina, regarding the Falklands as another relic of Empire (rather like Suez).

2) You correctly identify that we are in a war of ideas and language, which is why we should not shoot ourselves in the foot by referring to our enemies as "jihadi's".

Jihad is merely means a struggle for piety and is sometimes referred to as the sixth pillar of Islam, and is one of the ten practices of religion in Shi'ite Islam. As such it is something ALL muslims practice. By conflating "Jihad" with "terrorist" we would be alienating over a billion people including the populations of Afghan and Iraq and our other allies with large muslim populations.

As someone mentioned in another thread the media is a weapons system, and we need to use it effectively, especially when representing our enemies and allies.
 
#16
revmodes said:
Sent a strongly worded message to the governor of Louisiana in protest at the desecration of our national flag by a bunch of jumped up rednecks who think that BP is a british company, my sister in Wisconsin doubts very much that i will receive a response, but what the hell! :x
Not a widely held view I assure you. I would not extrapolate beyond the isolated event, stupid as it is.
 
#17
ouyin said:
The most noticeable flaw in this argument is that one of the three main tenants of his argument - that Obama is to blame for the failure of the "special relationship" - is bunk.


Sorry JJH, but this article really doesn't cut it.
Sorry to disappoint you-I do try and will redouble my efforts. As I have said before, I do not necessarily endorse every article I post or all of any given article. I post usually with an eye for finding timely and thought/discussion provoking articles and thought this one worthy of at least some ARRSERs' valuable time.

As for your objection about Him, obviously reasonable minds can differ about such things (as well as many unreasonable "minds" with predictably useless results). I certainly would not call it "bunk" especially given the author's impressive background (yes I know he had the temerity to serve under the evil GWB administration) and his articulation of the issues--even if you disagree. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eliot_A._Cohen
 
#18
jumpinjarhead said:
ouyin said:
The most noticeable flaw in this argument is that one of the three main tenants of his argument - that Obama is to blame for the failure of the "special relationship" - is bunk.


Sorry JJH, but this article really doesn't cut it.
Sorry to disappoint you-I do try and will redouble my efforts. As I have said before, I do not necessarily endorse every article I post or all of any given article. I post usually with an eye for finding timely and thought/discussion provoking articles and thought this one worthy of at least some ARRSERs' valuable time.

As for your objection about Him, obviously reasonable minds can differ about such things (as well as many unreasonable "minds" with predictably useless results). I certainly would not call it "bunk" especially given the author's impressive background (yes I know he had the temerity to serve under the evil GWB administration) and his articulation of the issues--even if you disagree. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eliot_A._Cohen
1) Indeed, I value your posts and your opinions JJH, certainly above many others on this site and I encourage you to post more. My criticism is merely my own opinion and certainly not above further argument.

2) Fair one, bunk is probably not the most academic language to use. Despite this I still strongly question his conclusion and line of thought in this argument.
 

FORMER_FYRDMAN

LE
Book Reviewer
#19
ouyin said:
(snip)

Jihad is merely means a struggle for piety and is sometimes referred to as the sixth pillar of Islam, and is one of the ten practices of religion in Shi'ite Islam. As such it is something ALL muslims practice. By conflating "Jihad" with "terrorist" we would be alienating over a billion people including the populations of Afghan and Iraq and our other allies with large muslim populations.
(snip)

Yes but language is dynamic and meanings evolve. Jihad now has a very distinct meaning for much of the world, Islamic or not, and that meaning does not revolve around an internal intellectual struggle for belief and understanding. In my view, Islam in the West should be forced to formally renounce all aspects of the faith which attempt to justify violent evangelism or violence and discrimination towards non-believers or else face the sanctions we apply to secular entities who espouse such ideas.

Anyway, back on thread, Obama is certainly a bit of a duffer on Foreign Policy but then Democrats usually are.
 
#20
The US media seem keen to show anti British sentiment - sad they haven't informed their public that BP is pretty much owned jointly by the UK and US.
The Obama regime have no particular love for Britain - that includes the messiah himself. Mind you they're fair - they seem to hold the American people in contempt also.....rather in the way New Labour regarded THEIR constituents.
Strangely there has been no criticism of the company who actually operate the rig causing all the bother - or US safety requirements that fall far short of, for example, their northern neighbo(u)rs'. Had the US government held their oil exploration operators to the same exacting standards the Canadians hold theirs the whole sad fiasco wouldn't have happened.
The anti-oil faction must be rubbing their hands with schadenfreudic glee!

BTW....Yer man is also a bit of a duffer at domestic policy too!
 

Similar threads

Latest Threads