Friedman Calls In Chips For Obama

[Annie]

I can see them lining up now. More of their GDP on defense of themselves. A more active roll regarding Iran. Times are going to be great!

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/09/opinion/09friedman.html?_r=1&ref=opinion&oref=slogin

Show Me the Money

By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN
So, I was speaking to an Iranian friend about what a mind-bending thing it must be for people in the Middle East to see Americans, seven years after 9/11, electing someone named Barack Hussein Obama as president. America is surely the only nation that could — in the same decade — go to war against a president named Hussein (Saddam of Iraq), threaten to use force against a country whose most revered religious martyr is named Hussein (Iran) and then elect its own president who’s middle-named Hussein.

Is this a great country or what?...

But while the world appears poised to give Obama a generous honeymoon, there lurks a much more important question: How long of a honeymoon will Obama give the world?

To all those Europeans, Canadians, Japanese, Russians, Iranians, Chinese, Indians, Africans and Latin Americans who are e-mailing their American friends about their joy at having “America back,” now that Obama is in, I just have one thing to say: “Show me the money!”

Don’t just show me the love. Don’t just give me the smiles. Your love is fickle and, as I said, it will last about as long as the first Obama airstrike against an Al Qaeda position in Pakistan. No, no, no, show me the money. Show me that you are ready to be Obama stakeholders, not free-riders — stakeholders in what will be expensive and difficult initiatives by the Obama administration to keep the world stable and free at a time when we have fewer resources.

Examples: I understand any foreigner who objected to the U.S. invasion of Iraq and the gross mishandling of the postwar. But surely everyone in the world has an interest in helping Obama, who opposed the war, bring it to a decent and stable end, especially now that there is a chance that Iraq could emerge as the first democracy, albeit messy, in the heart of the Arab-Muslim world. Obama was against how this Iraq war started, but he is going to be held responsible for how it ends, so why don’t all our allies now offer whatever they can — money, police, aid workers, troops, diplomatic support — to increase the odds of a decent end in Iraq? Ditto Afghanistan.

The U.N. says it doesn’t want Iran to go nuclear and doesn’t want the U.S. to use force to prevent Iran from going nuclear. I agree. That’s why I want all those people in China, France, Russia, India and Germany who are smiling for Obama to go out and demand that their governments use their tremendous economic leverage with Iran to let the Iranians know that if Tehran continues to move toward a nuclear weapon, in opposition to U.N. resolutions, these countries will impose real economic sanctions. Nothing — and I mean nothing — would more help President-elect Obama to forge a diplomatic deal with Iran than having a threat of biting Chinese, Indian and E.U. economic sanctions in his holster.

President Bush, because he was so easily demonized, made being a free-rider on American power easy for everyone — and Americans paid the price. Obama will not make it so easy.

So to everyone overseas I say: thanks for your applause for our new president. I’m glad you all feel that America “is back.” If you want Obama to succeed, though, don’t just show us the love, show us the money. Show us the troops. Show us the diplomatic effort. Show us the economic partnership. Show us something more than a fresh smile. Because freedom is not free and your excuse for doing less than you could is leaving town in January.

 

[Mad Scientist]

Because freedom is not free and your excuse for doing less than you could is leaving town in January.

 

[Annie]

Of course Friedman was never crazy for Bush, what will be interesting is to see the fruition of Europe's calls for 'change.' Their excuse for not stepping up is gone, what do you think will 'change'?

 

[editec]

American foreign policy in the last 8 years was far to belicose and far too arrogant.

Even when the governments of Europe basically agreed with those policies, the arrogance of them made it difficult for those governments because they offended the PEOPLE.

Perhaps a more subtle POTUS, one not given to saying things like "bring 'em on!" will make it easier for those governments to help us without inflaming the anti-Americanism which BUSH largely caused in the hearts and minds of the citizenry of much of the world.

That, incidently is one of the benefits of dumping Bush's successor, McCain.

You nitwits who keep telling us that we don't have to CARE what foreignors think about our government couldn't possibly be more wrong.

 

[Annie]

American foreign policy in the last 8 years was far to belicose and far too arrogant.

Even when the governments of Europe basically agreed with those policies, the arrogance of them made it difficult for those governments because they offended the PEOPLE.

Perhaps a more subtle POTUS, one not given to saying things like "bring 'em on!" will make it easier for those governments to help us without inflaming the anti-Americanism which BUSH largely caused in the hearts and minds of the citizenry of much of the world.

That, incidently is one of the benefits of dumping Bush's successor, McCain.

You nitwits who keep telling us that we don't have to CARE what foreignors think about our government couldn't possibly be more wrong.

Who are 'you nitwits'? Why the name calling? Friedman is most definitely not a conservative.

So, do you think Europe, et al are going to step up now that the old administration of the past 8 years is leaving?

 

[rayboyusmc]

You really won't know what Europe will do until they do it.

And you won't know what Obama will do until he does it.

Bush's arrogance alienated a lot of our allies. It wasn't needed or really the sign of a good leader.

 

[Silence]

Who are 'you nitwits'? Why the name calling? Friedman is most definitely not a conservative.

So, do you think Europe, et al are going to step up now that the old administration of the past 8 years is leaving?

I think it's possible. and what if they do? will you then accept that Obama being President isn't such a bad thing?

Bush is the one who alienated Europe. Obama isn't some magic fixer-upper who on 1/20/08 the world will forget all that America has done. If you think that then it's because you want an excuse to berate Obama when not much has changed in 6 months to a year.

I think the new administration is going to have to PROVE it's different than Bush, in policy and in attitude not just name.

 

[editec]

Who are 'you nitwits'? Why the name calling? Friedman is most definitely not a conservative.

So, do you think Europe, et al are going to step up now that the old administration of the past 8 years is leaving?

Europe had been stepping up despite the fact that their people were outraged by their government's support.

the majority of UK people opposed the UKs support of our invasion, yet they Brits still sent troops.

You missed that?

How about Spain?

Their government toppled because it supported the US invasion.

Don't you read the papers?

 

[Annie]

I think it's possible. and what if they do? will you then accept that Obama being President isn't such a bad thing?

Bush is the one who alienated Europe. Obama isn't some magic fixer-upper who on 1/20/08 the world will forget all that America has done. If you think that then it's because you want an excuse to berate Obama when not much has changed in 6 months to a year.

I think the new administration is going to have to PROVE it's different than Bush, in policy and in attitude not just name.

If they do, I'll be happily surprised and would say so. What about all of those that said that with a change in administration, to one less bellicose, etc., we would suddenly not find ourselves alone internationally? If they don't step up, instead want to ride the coat tails, should we pull those coat tails? Will it be acknowledged that it may never have been the US, but the international community that hides behind US? Notice, I'm not criticizing Obama, even if the results are less than some expected, rather for some to remove their blinders from the hypocrisy of international discourse.

 

[WillowTree]

So to everyone overseas I say: thanks for your applause for our new president. I’m glad you all feel that America “is back.” If you want Obama to succeed, though, don’t just show us the love, show us the money. Show us the troops. Show us the diplomatic effort. Show us the economic partnership. Show us something more than a fresh smile. Because freedom is not free and your excuse for doing less than you could is leaving town in January.

I totally agree with this, but methinks Europe is one of those "Do as I say, not as I do" situations.. Very judgmental, very! Eff them.

 

[Silence]

If they do, I'll be happily surprised and would say so. What about all of those that said that with a change in administration, to one less bellicose, etc., we would suddenly not find ourselves alone internationally? If they don't step up, instead want to ride the coat tails, should we pull those coat tails? Will it be acknowledged that it may never have been the US, but the international community that hides behind US? Notice, I'm not criticizing Obama, even if the results are less than some expected, rather for some to remove their blinders from the hypocrisy of international discourse.

We found ourselves alone because we ignored the UN and invaded Iraq anyway. Bush said he didn't need UN approval and basically told the international community to piss up a rope.

How are you so blind to the realities of the situation Kath? you seem pretty informed and very intelligent yet the things you claim are reality are so far removed from the truth that it's a little frightening.

Immediately following 9/11 a French newspaper carried the headline WE ARE ALL AMERICANS.

International Press - War on Terrorism - September 11 Terrorist Attacks - Iraq - Al-Qaeda

One Year Later: The initial outpouring of sympathy and support for the United States after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks was without precedent. And it will likely not be seen again soon. In the year since, support for U.S. policies in the opinion pages of newspapers and magazines around the world has steadily dwindled. Today, the U.S. administration's determination to unseat Iraqi President Saddam Hussein and to launch preemptive strikes against any regime that poses, or might pose, a threat to American ascendency in world affairs has alarmed much of the international press. Shock, sympathy, and grief have largely been replaced by cynicism, mistrust, and anger.

our treatment of detainees in Gitmo, the scandals of the war in Iraq such a Abu Grab, and all the other horrific things that the administration not only allowed but sanctioned is what has cost us our standing in the international community.

 

[Annie]

We found ourselves alone because we ignored the UN and invaded Iraq anyway. Bush said he didn't need UN approval and basically told the international community to piss up a rope.

How are you so blind to the realities of the situation Kath? you seem pretty informed and very intelligent yet the things you claim are reality are so far removed from the truth that it's a little frightening.

Immediately following 9/11 a French newspaper carried the headline WE ARE ALL AMERICANS.

International Press - War on Terrorism - September 11 Terrorist Attacks - Iraq - Al-Qaeda



our treatment of detainees in Gitmo, the scandals of the war in Iraq such a Abu Grab, and all the other horrific things that the administration not only allowed but sanctioned is what has cost us our standing in the international community.

And you cannot see that what the French or any other leaders 'say' maybe a tad different than what they do? I don't know if you are uninformed or naive. In any case, you seemed to have missed the thesis of Friedman's column and my question in the first place.

 

[Silence]

And you cannot see that what the French or any other leaders 'say' maybe a tad different than what they do? I don't know if you are uninformed or naive. In any case, you seemed to have missed the thesis of Friedman's column and my question in the first place.

aahhh yes...you pull out the tried and true... you must be uninformed OR naive card because I don't adhere to the belief that it wasn't Bush's fault that the international community turned their backs on us.... they were gonna do that anyway...they just pretended to be supportive of the U.S. following 9/11.

I got Friedman's column and I don't necessarily disagree with him. Now that Bush is leaving office the interntaional community has every reason to reengage with the U.S. IF we can prove that we are going to handle things differently.

Obama has a lot of work to do to repair the damage that's been done. I think he'll get there but I don't think that European countries will be lining up on 1/21/09 with their checkbooks open just because we've had an adminstration change.

Obama needs to make some serious overtures, such as closing Gitmo and denouncing torture all together, in order to signal that more than just the name on the door has changed.

 

[Annie]

aahhh yes...you pull out the tried and true... you must be uninformed OR naive card because I don't adhere to the belief that it wasn't Bush's fault that the international community turned their backs on us.... they were gonna do that anyway...they just pretended to be supportive of the U.S. following 9/11.

I got Friedman's column and I don't necessarily disagree with him. Now that Bush is leaving office the interntaional community has every reason to reengage with the U.S. IF we can prove that we are going to handle things differently.

Obama has a lot of work to do to repair the damage that's been done. I think he'll get there but I don't think that European countries will be lining up on 1/21/09 with their checkbooks open just because we've had an adminstration change.

Obama needs to make some serious overtures, such as closing Gitmo and denouncing torture all together, in order to signal that more than just the name on the door has changed.

Wow, you mean YOU had perceptions of Bush's actions, much like 'the world.' LOL! In any case, let's make some givens. Obama has been elected and contrary to leftist concerns Bush relinquishes office on 1/20/09. Obama closes Gitmo, renounces torture and tries or frees all the political prisoners. Now will we see the international community allies, do what they need to do to protect their own interests, allowing us to do the same? Yes, they'll spend more of the GDP on their own defense, allowing us to pay down some of our debt, you know, the mess left behind by 'GW'? (See, I'm helping you out here, letting Bush be the fall guy). Then will we be able to care for only our own needs and self-interests?

 

[Silence]

Wow, you mean YOU had perceptions of Bush's actions, much like 'the world.' LOL! In any case, let's make some givens. Obama has been elected and contrary to leftist concerns Bush relinquishes office on 1/20/09. Obama closes Gitmo, renounces torture and tries or frees all the political prisoners. Now will we see the international community allies, do what they need to do to protect their own interests, allowing us to do the same? Yes, they'll spend more of the GDP on their own defense, allowing us to pay down some of our debt, you know, the mess left behind by 'GW'? (See, I'm helping you out here, letting Bush be the fall guy). Then will we be able to care for only our own needs and self-interests?

when have we ever only cared for our own needs and self-interests Kath?

My perceptions are my own...I know it's fun to think that all those who believe it was Bush's fault are sheep, mindlessly following the herd but did it ever occur to you that we're right and those who don't agree are the mindless ones, refusing to acknowledge his major mistakes? hell, even he doesn't acknolwedge his mistakes so why should he drone followers I guess

 

[Annie]

when have we ever only cared for our own needs and self-interests Kath?

My perceptions are my own...I know it's fun to think that all those who believe it was Bush's fault are sheep, mindlessly following the herd but did it ever occur to you that we're right and those who don't agree are the mindless ones, refusing to acknowledge his major mistakes? hell, even he doesn't acknolwedge his mistakes so why should he drone followers I guess

Did it ever occur to you that it's unlikely that any person or president is always right or wrong? That the nature of things has ups and downs? That one should be positive even in criticism? That is what has made you all the ones. In fact, you all are having a hard time celebrating your 'win.' Instead it's more invective towards all that refuse to follow your cult like herd.

Again I speak for myself. Bush did somethings I thought in the right for our country, still is. On many other fronts, especially domestic, I disagreed and still do. Oh yeah, I wasn't silent about those disagreements either. I don't know if the Schivo threads are archived, but they made for some interesting times. As did the millions spent on foreign aid, while the deficit ballooned.

I have this problem, I keep myself informed. I don't read just from the right or left. I watch little television and I manage to read more than just novels. I've never voted a strait ticket in my life, because there's never been a slate of one party I've thought deserving.

Throw around your lame ass insults and names, so far I've found little that would make me feel I should give them significance considering the source.

 

[Silence]

Throw around your lame ass insults and names, so far I've found little that would make me feel I should give them significance considering the source.

have I called you a name other than Kath? what is with you and the whining about being insulted? do you take disagreement as an insult??

So far you've insinuated I'm either completely uninformed, stupid or just plain naive and yet I'm not complaining about your insults.

Try accepting that I'm just as entitled to my opinion as you are yours and if you don't want to debate me or others perphaps you should retire from the boards.

 

[Annie]

have I called you a name other than Kath? what is with you and the whining about being insulted? do you take disagreement as an insult??

So far you've insinuated I'm either completely uninformed, stupid or just plain naive and yet I'm not complaining about your insults.

Try accepting that I'm just as entitled to my opinion as you are yours and if you don't want to debate me or others perphaps you should retire from the boards.

Wait, it's ok for you to have opinions aka biases, without being labeled? Is that what your asking? If so, fine then do the same.

btw, I'm not going anywhere.

 

[Silence]

Wait, it's ok for you to have opinions aka biases, without being labeled? Is that what your asking? If so, fine then do the same.

btw, I'm not going anywhere.

I never said it wasn't okay for you to have opinions. You're more than welcome to them but don't be so dismissive of people whose opinions differ from your own. It's arrogant and rude IMO.

I don't understand how you formed your opinions based on the evidence that's out there but I can only assume it's because your view of the world is different than mine, not better, not worse, just different. Saying I'm either wholly uninformed, stupid or just naive is uncalled for.

oh and btw, I get labeled all the time in case you missed it Kath. It's not a label I agree with because I don't consider myself and wholesale liberal.

I'm socially liberal but fiscally conservative and on that front Bush assualted my beliefs twice, hence my utter dislike for his policies.... I don't dislike him as a person, he seems like a decent guy and I DO think he was doing what he felt was right for the country...he just didn't stop to take anyone else's opinions into consideration. I hope under Obama, that will change.