American Opinion Abroad and Obama

[captainhampton]

One of the promises Obama made was to restore the image of America worldwide. do you think he has been successful in this regard so far?

what do you think of some of the following things:

not using the phrase war on terror-how has this helped or hurt. explain how?

his meeting with anti-American leaders like Hugo Chavez

France withdrawing their troops from Afghanistan

[saysmydoctor]

1. Good, a global war on terror is impossible.
2. Fantastic.
3. Their choice.

[bloodymurder]

1. Good, a global war on terror is impossible.
2. Fantastic.
3. Their choice.

Hahaha, I think David Cross said it best when he said that trying to win a war on terror is impossible, it's like trying to fight a war on jealousy.

[jagermeister]

I feel as if Canadians have a better image of America now. However, we've been "so close to the action" that (at least to me) there is still a negative image regardless of who is President or what he has done yet. I think it will take more than 3 months to restore a good American image abroad.

That being said - I have always been kind of sketched out that Obama is too good to be true, and has some sort of secret agenda. But thats just the paranoid/conspiracy theorist side of me.

[saysmydoctor]

That was the point, there would always be "terrorists" lurking in the shadows, and The War On Terror could go on and on..
So, if I'm tracking, you are supporting this mentality.

The War on Terror is an extension of the politics of fear. While "Overseas Contingency Operations" may be demeaning to the men on the ground, I think it's a welcome change.

[SpacePunk]

1. He would never be painted as a "Cowboy" by the fawning European media even if he continued using the inflammatory language of Bush.

2. Pointless.

3. Irrelevant.

[SpacePunk]

So, if I'm tracking, you are supporting this mentality.

The War on Terror is an extension of the politics of fear. While "Overseas Contingency Operations" may be demeaning to the men on the ground, I think it's a welcome change.

Yes, I meant the War on Terror was designed to go on and on as it could never be won.

Obama's administration will eventually rebrand it with terms like the "ongoing struggle" while continuing to carry out more or less the same foreign policies as the hawks that preceded them.

[saysmydoctor]

And that's good?

[SpacePunk]

And that's good?

No.

[saysmydoctor]

Oh, ok. You were kind of neutral, it seemed. It almost seemed like you advocating it.

[captainhampton]

So, if I'm tracking, you are supporting this mentality.

The War on Terror is an extension of the politics of fear. While "Overseas Contingency Operations" may be demeaning to the men on the ground, I think it's a welcome change.

I can see why people don't like the words "War On." However, what is his hesitancy to use the word terror and terrorism? Overseas Contingency Operations is just politically correct garbage and screams weakness.

[IAmNietzche]

I can see why people don't like the words "War On." However, what is his hesitancy to use the word terror and terrorism? Overseas Contingency Operations is just politically correct garbage and screams weakness.
The problem isn't really with "War on" but with terror. Terror is an abstract term that you can't go to war against.

[saysmydoctor]

I can see why people don't like the words "War On." However, what is his hesitancy to use the word terror and terrorism? Overseas Contingency Operations is just politically correct garbage and screams weakness.
Because you can't wage a war on a tactic. I agree with Ron Paul here. Terrorism is a tactic.

[captainhampton]

The problem isn't really with "War on" but with terror. Terror is an abstract term that you can't go to war against.

Because you can't wage a war on a tactic. I agree with Ron Paul here. Terrorism is a tactic.

ok and I understand the criticisms of those who don't like the terrorism and war connection, but why is he so hesitant to use the word? whatever you want to call it, i think you both know that worldwide terrorism is still an issue that all nations must pay attention to. I feel by calling it a contingency plan that he is severely downplaying the threat.

[saysmydoctor]

ok and I understand the criticisms of those who don't like the terrorism and war connection, but why is he so hesitant to use the word? whatever you want to call it, i think you both know that worldwide terrorism is still an issue that all nations must pay attention to. I feel by calling it a contingency plan that he is severely downplaying the threat.
I really don't see worldwide terrorism as being the root issue, more like US foreign policy.

I don't think he has been hesitant to use the word at all. I think he is trying to drop the facade that Iraq is part of the 'global war on terror,' and imply it as a temporary distraction. He has not shown himself to be soft on terrorists. Tell otherwise to the dead pirates with sniper rounds in their heads.

[captainhampton]

I really don't see worldwide terrorism as being the root issue, more like US foreign policy.

I don't think he has been hesitant to use the word at all. I think he is trying to drop the facade that Iraq is part of the 'global war on terror,' and imply it as a temporary distraction. He has not shown himself to be soft on terrorists. Tell otherwise to the dead pirates with sniper rounds in their heads.

oh so the root of most worldwide terrorism is because of US foreign policy. you are taking the ron paul approach. So, if Obama changes the attitude of our foreign policy and tones down the rhetoric, do you think this will significantly change the way terrorists look at us and our image worldwide will improve?

and he was good on the pirates. gotta give credit when it is due

[saysmydoctor]

oh so the root of most worldwide terrorism is because of US foreign policy. you are taking the ron paul approach. So, if Obama changes the attitude of our foreign policy and tones down the rhetoric, do you think this will significantly change the way terrorists look at us and our image worldwide will improve?

and he was good on the pirates. gotta give credit when it is due
I've always been an isolationist concerning foreign policy. We entangle ourselves into many problems acting as the global police and in the end it bites us hard in the ass. Giving money to corrupt dictators and brutal regimes (South America, Pakistan, South America, PAKISTAN, Israel) is endorsement, plain and simple. Our only interest should be the global economy and working to end global poverty. Not intervening in regional civil wars.

[Machu505]

1. Don't really care.
2. Completely necessary. If we can hold hands with Saudi dictators and give cars to Soviet communists, we can accept books from Chavez.
3. France is largely irrelevant military-wise.

[IAmNietzche]

oh so the root of most worldwide terrorism is because of US foreign policy. you are taking the ron paul approach. So, if Obama changes the attitude of our foreign policy and tones down the rhetoric, do you think this will significantly change the way terrorists look at us and our image worldwide will improve?

and he was good on the pirates. gotta give credit when it is due
Ron Paul is correct in this area. Our foreign policy is the root of Islamic terrorism. I think changing our attitude in terms of foreign policy will help, but we have already done the damage. To think that simply revamping our foreign policy and rhetoric now will stop Islamic terrorism is too idealistic.

[J.C.]

oh so the root of most worldwide terrorism is because of US foreign policy

US foreign policy plays a significant role. Why, what would you attribute it to?

[zion the lion]

1. war on terror seems like it's lord of the rings or starwars with a very clear line between good and evil when the whole thing is gray
2. would you rather him have kicked him in the balls and scream "VENEZUELA LICK MY ASSHOLE!"
3. why should that even matter?

[captainhampton]

Ron Paul is correct in this area. Our foreign policy is the root of Islamic terrorism. I think changing our attitude in terms of foreign policy will help, but we have already done the damage. To think that simply revamping our foreign policy and rhetoric now will stop Islamic terrorism is too idealistic.

the root of Islamic terrorism comes from their radical interpretation of Islam. They want death to ALL infidels. not just the US. It just happens that being the most powerful nation, we are the main target. If we were a powerful pacifist nation, they would still hate us. It really doesn't matter what direction we take foreign policy wise. It doesn't matter that we had troops in Saudi Arabia nor would it matter if we didn't support Israel. This at its root is because of their idea that Islam will reign supreme and to do this requires death to all infidels. This extremism goes back decades and didn't just happen because of the foreign policy decisions of W, Clinton, Bush, Reagan etc.

[captainhampton]

1. war on terror seems like it's lord of the rings or starwars with a very clear line between good and evil when the whole thing is gray
2. would you rather him have kicked him in the balls and scream "VENEZUELA LICK MY ASSHOLE!"
3. why should that even matter?

regarding Chavez, why go to that summitt in the first place? what is to gain for the US? of course he can't just not shake the guys hand if he is there. but seriously, who do you think gained from that? Obama? no way. It was a huge propaganda victory for Chavez and his dictatorship.

[zion the lion]

regarding Chavez, why go to that summitt in the first place? what is to gain for the US? of course he can't just not shake the guys hand if he is there. but seriously, who do you think gained from that? Obama? no way. It was a huge propaganda victory for Chavez and his dictatorship.

You know what that summit was about right? And think about it this way, Chavez is becoming less hostile, which means sooner or later we'll make Venezuela an ally just like what happened with Japan. Why wouldnt he be nice and shake his hand? Chavez came to Obama, it would have been completely rude. We arent some hillbilly gun war crazy "we're right and fuck everybody else" country anymore

[captainhampton]

wow we were a hillbilly gun crazy nation and Hugo Chavez will now tone things down because of this. how naive i was.

[Adeniz19]

regarding Chavez, why go to that summitt in the first place? what is to gain for the US? of course he can't just not shake the guys hand if he is there. but seriously, who do you think gained from that? Obama? no way. It was a huge propaganda victory for Chavez and his dictatorship.wait, how is it a huge propaganda victory for chavez? i think, if anything, it makes him look two-faced and a hypocrite, especially after all the shit he talked before the meet.

also, obama went, because it was the summit of the AMERICAS. should we isolate ourselves from our neighbors because of one jackass, and then have everyone mad at us?

[captainhampton]

how do you think the story was spun in the south american media? you've got pictures of Chavez shaking hands and smiling with the leader of the free world. you don't think that it is going to get spun to make Chavez look good down there?

[zion the lion]

wow we were a hillbilly gun crazy nation and Hugo Chavez will now tone things down because of this. how naive i was.

I know right!!!

It couldnt possibly be diplomacy at all, no we're just buying into progaganda now, correct?

[saysmydoctor]

the root of Islamic terrorism comes from their radical interpretation of Islam. They want death to ALL infidels. not just the US. It just happens that being the most powerful nation, we are the main target. If we were a powerful pacifist nation, they would still hate us. It really doesn't matter what direction we take foreign policy wise. It doesn't matter that we had troops in Saudi Arabia nor would it matter if we didn't support Israel. This at its root is because of their idea that Islam will reign supreme and to do this requires death to all infidels. This extremism goes back decades and didn't just happen because of the foreign policy decisions of W, Clinton, Bush, Reagan etc.
I think you are misinterpreting their interpretation of the Quran. They hate infidels interfering in what they see as the future islamic caliphate. They have no problem with us being the supreme power of the world as long as we don't try to meander our beliefs into their lands and try to extend an imperialistic over them.
regarding Chavez, why go to that summitt in the first place? what is to gain for the US? of course he can't just not shake the guys hand if he is there. but seriously, who do you think gained from that? Obama? no way. It was a huge propaganda victory for Chavez and his dictatorship.
The 'we don't talk to them' has proven to be the most contradictory policy from the Bush era. Working with the North Koreans, diplomacy ACTUALLY made progress. Cooperation with Venezuela is vital to Chavez, because we purchase 60% of the oil they produce. He needs America more than he realizes. This is a huge win for Obama.

[Adeniz19]

how do you think the story was spun in the south american media? you've got pictures of Chavez shaking hands and smiling with the leader of the free world. you don't think that it is going to get spun to make Chavez look good down there?do you watch a lot of south american media, or are you just assuming? you don't think they are going to write up anything positive about obama, either?

[J.C.]

you don't think that it is going to get spun to make Chavez look good down there?

I'm slightly amused that this argument is being made now by the same side that spent the last 8 years telling us not to care about what the rest of the world thought.