Will the World Like the US Better Under Obama?

[Annie]

It will help put to rest a lot of the negative stereotypes about America and Americans. When we re-elected Bush, we effectively turned our nose and said **** YOU to the rest of the world. In fact, that's precisely why I voted for him. However, in retrospect, spite probably wasn't the best basis for making a choice at the polls. I can be be pretty small sometimes.

Again, how does Obama change that? Because he's young, black and a good orator? In what ways does that change our interests?

 

[Annie]

Obama is smart, charismatic, and well spoken. He presents a different face to the world. A multiracial, multicultural face. More like the real America.

See my post above, how would you answer?

 

[manifold]

Again, how does Obama change that [negative stereotypes about America and Americans]? Because he's young, black and a good orator?

Yes

In what ways does that change our interests?

It could make it harder for terrorist organizations to sell the bullshit lies about America they use to recruit new members. Maybe not, but there is certainly a greater chance of this with Obama than there would be with McCain.

 

[Annie]

Yes




It could make it harder for terrorist organizations to sell the bullshit lies about America they use to recruit new members. Maybe not, but there is certainly a greater chance of this with Obama than there would be with McCain.

Umm, they already are having a problem with that. Reason for the remote control, they are running out of volunteers for some reason.

They didn't know they had you for a cheerleader, but talleyho!

 

[manifold]

Umm, they already are having a problem with that. Reason for the remote control, they are running out of volunteers for some reason.

They didn't know they had you for a cheerleader, but talleyho!

I apologize. I mistakenly thought you were interested in having a meaningful discussion on the topic. My bad.









Over the top flame editted by Napolean

 

[Annie]

I apologize. I mistakenly thought you were interested in having a meaningful discussion on the topic. My bad.









Over the top flame editted by GunnyL

Well that was enlightening. NOT.

 

[Ravi]

It could make it harder for terrorist organizations to sell the bullshit lies about America they use to recruit new members. Maybe not, but there is certainly a greater chance of this with Obama than there would be with McCain.

Why, because his father was a muslim?

 

[Dr Grump]

Oh, I "know nothing" about Allende? I suppose Nixon knew nothing either. Well, Mr. History Know-it-all please state the facts that show Allende was not a communist ripping off lands and businesses. Prove that the US had no business there. Prove that the US unseated Allende arbitrarily all by its lonely self. Prove that the Soviet Union wasn't involved there..

He was redistributing the wealth, which may or may not have been wrong. I mean, look at how your corporations ride rough-shot over you. Hardly a ringing endorsement. But if you knew anythign about Allende, know this - his reforms worked the first 18 months of his presidency until the US and others (and have admitted such BTW) undermined him. Bottom line is, he was voted in democratically - whether you like it or not..

You claim that Cuba is the way they are because of the US? All OUR fault? What a crock. I suppose you think Cuba had nothing to do with the fact that the Soviet Union brought in threatening missiles 70 miles from our shores during the Cold War? And Castro had nothing to do with the killing of Cuban people, human rights violations, the grab of control of Cuba's farms and businesses, or the suppression of free speech, etc.? Cubans risked their lives on inner tubes escaping to Florida just for the hell of it? Silly us, we put Cuba on unfavored nation status just for kicks...you think poor widdle Cuba was just an innocent little dictatorship sitting there, doing nada….and Big Bad America just shit on them for no good reason....you really are indoctrinated, aren't you?

Because everything was so hunky dory under Batista right? See, you are insular. You don't think of the bigger picture. Why did Castro come to power in the first place?

I figured Chavez would be one of your socialist heroes….another Castro kind-of-guy. The poor in Venezuela used to think Chavez was real cool….while he promised them all sorts of goodies... being the typical socialist that he is….but now that he can't deliver on all those goodies...things aren't as rosy...which happens over and over under socialist regimes….you'd think people would learn from history…..but obviously even big history buffs like you can't seem to put two and two together.

Chavez is running into the same problems that Castro did. The US hates him and that doesn't help his situation.Once again, he came to power because the elite gave nothing to the underclass. You need a stable, large middle class for a democracy to flourish. Cuba and Venezuela had neither. 1% super rich, 99% super poor...But again, he was democratically elected, and despite neocon windbags like yourself stating that he would rig the last referendum extending his term, he lost and agreed to the results..

Like I said ingrate, next time don't come calling to the USA for help.

SE showing how stupid he is yet again. Please show when NZ has ever come to the US asking for help. Take your time...

On one hand you leftists think we interfere too much and on the other hand you think we don't do enough….I wish you idiots could make up your minds….but you won't….because you lefties prefer to demean and destroy USA democracy any which way you can.

Only in US, right-wing, neocon, religious nutjob Land am I considered leftie. In the normal world I'm considered a centrist. No, what you do - which NZ does - is give aid with no conditions. I would hardly call what you have democracy. Try Germany, France, NZ, Scandinavia, Switzerland, Australia if you want at least an honest attempt at democracy

OYou have all the earmarks of a commie sympathizer and a sucking socialist….something us conservative Americans despise. You probably don't believe in God….but just because I do….you lefties figure that's a good reason to insult someone….for some idiot reason you think that carries political weight here in America...and if anybody's the whiner here…you fit the bill to a tee.

Oh, so now because I don't believe in God, I'm a Commie sympathiser. What nutjobs like you don't realise, is that you are the epitome of why people turn away from religion. You are bigotted, small minded, but most importantly, dumb as a post...

 

[José]

I hope my next post serves as a bridge between Grump and Eagle.

I hope you both see it as “reasonable”, at least.

 

[José]

The deposition of democratic governments throughout Latin America in the 60’s and 70’s and their replacement by right wing dictatorships had a “noble” goal:

To avoid the spread of communism.

But the question many historians ask themselves is:

Was it really necessary to overthrow legitimate, democratic governments in order to stop the spread of communism?

In my opinion, no, and I use India’s example to support my argument.

During the 60’s and 70’s, India was incomparably poorer than Latin American nations and was much closer to the Soviet Union and China than those nations who never left the American sphere of influence.

India’s impeccable democratic tradition was not tarnished by civilian or military coups a single time in its history despite the fact that this nation found itself, SOCIALLY and GEOGRAPHICALLY, much more vulnerable to communism than Latin America.

It would have been much better if the US had helped pro democracy groups in Latin America instead of fomenting the establishment of authoritarian governments that destroyed so many civil liberties and murdered so many people in the Americas.

IMO, there was no need to interrupt the Latin American democratic process in order to prevent communism from spreading throughout the continent.

If democracy in India could survive the Cold War, being so close to the communist giants, it could have survived in America’s neighborhood too.

 

[José]

I won’t ask the left-inclined members to agree with me now:

Castro (the Cuban regime) and Chavez are not democratic leaders by any stretch of the imagination.

The former is a “classic dictator” while the latter is an autocrat.

 

[Gunny]

I apologize. I mistakenly thought you were interested in having a meaningful discussion on the topic. My bad.









Over the top flame editted by GunnyL

Please try to limit flaming as much as possible to the Flame Zone Forum. That's what it is for. The upper forums are for at least somewhat civil discourse, of which your comment didn't even come close.

Thanks,

Gunny

 

[Ravi]

Please try to limit flaming as much as possible to the Flame Zone Forum. That's what it is for. The upper forums are for at least somewhat civil discourse, of which your comment didn't even come close.

Thanks,

Gunny

But calling someone a terrorist supporter is okay?

 

[editec]

It

would have been much better if the US had helped pro democracy groups in Latin America instead of fomenting the establishment of authoritarian governments that destroyed so many civil liberties and murdered so many people in the Americas.

We couldn't support pro-democractic movements in those Central and South American nations.

The same people who might have wanted a democratic government also wanted to do something about the lopsided economies system which kept the vast majority of their people so damned poor.

The moment any group started talking about "land redistribution" or "nationalizing the nations natural resources", they were labeled as communists or socialists, which in fact, many of them were.

In many cases the land they'd have redistributed or the natural resources they'd have nationalized, were owned, wholly or in part, by AMERICAN corporations.

I'm a Chicita-Banana and I'm here to say
If you try to take my land I'll send Marines today
So you'd best pick bananas and accept your fate
You're a peasant, always will be in that third world state.

​

 

[ScreamingEagle]

I'm a Chicita-Banana and I'm here to say
If you try to take my land I'll send Marines today
So you'd best pick bananas and accept your fate
You're a peasant, always will be in that third world state.

Over the years countries have allowed Americans to invest and establish their businesses. It was fine to begin with but over time as American businesses flourished people like Dr. Grump became resentful of Americans for their success and wealth. When political factions in countries attempt to take over established American businesses they wonder why Americans fight back…because believers in socialism think they deserve to own and control what others have built….

I'm sure the world will like the US better under Obama because BO is just another typical leftist...he's never built anything. He'll be a fine promoter for those who think successful private companies deserve to be owned by "the people" ….of course, as history has proven time and time again, under socialism nobody seems to benefit much….

This price makes no sense, and I do not believe it can last much longer.

We'd both best hope to God I'm right, about this, too.

We will be in world-wide depression soon if I'm not.

If fundamentals mean nothing and the rules are broken… then what you're really saying is we just have one big casino…why build a real business anymore… and aside from all those congressmen et al out for the gravy…who are the big players?… are the motives solely greed or has the game become more dangerous?

If the movers and shakers are deliberately playing games with our real estate market….our oil market…. our food market….one market after another...creating high costs where no shortages actually exist…..what happens after they've fleeced everyone...if not depression?

(…and perhaps a whole new world order&#8230

 

[CharlestonChad]

I'd be willing to bet that a Muslim nation would support a respectable conservative leader rather than an extreme liberal....unless he was muslim..lol.

It's a pretty basic concept. People are going to support whoever has most in common with their beliefs, values, and lifestyle.

Then they will be more willing to support a Liberal. You see, conservative foreign policy, as of now, is scary to the rest of the world. Bush policy is one of war with nations that have the powers to ignite a world war. IMO, conservative islamic nations would rather have the US not bother them, then the US trying to bully them out of oil and land.

 

[Chris]

Again, how does Obama change that? Because he's young, black and a good orator? In what ways does that change our interests?

Because LEADERSHIP is the ability to gain support for your cause from other countries in the world. The go-it-alone, John Wayne approach of George the Lesser has been a disaster. Let's look at the Gulf War vs the Iraq War. George Bush Sr. got on the phone and won the support of many nations to back the first Gulf War. As a result the first Gulf War cost us only a few billion dollars because nations as diverse as Japan kicked in money to pay for it. Bush Jr. could not gain any support for the Iraq War worldwide, and so that war cost us $700 billion dollars. That is a failure of LEADERSHIP.

Obama is already extremely popular worldwide and will be much better at selling the American cause overseas. We must be able to lead in such a way that others will follow.

 

[AllieBaba]

Obama is popular with our ENEMIES because they know that with him as president we will be VULNERABLE.

It is not important that we "lead" countries which hate us and want us dead. It is important that we are invulnerable to them, and refuse to tolerate their crap.

 

[Dr Grump]

Obama is popular with our ENEMIES because they know that with him as president we will be VULNERABLE.

It is not important that we "lead" countries which hate us and want us dead. It is important that we are invulnerable to them, and refuse to tolerate their crap.

Almost can't be bothered answering this because you are beyond dense. Wouldn't it be better for the US to have a president who has a lot of international friends to call on when the going gets tough, instead of the Coalition of the Willing types such as Albania and Estonia??

 

[Dr Grump]

Over the years countries have allowed Americans to invest and establish their businesses. It was fine to begin with but over time as American businesses flourished people like Dr. Grump became resentful of Americans for their success and wealth. When political factions in countries attempt to take over established American businesses they wonder why Americans fight back…because believers in socialism think they deserve to own and control what others have built….

I have never once been resentful of US wealth or success. That goes for any country. What I am resentful of is others interferring in the political process of other countries - moreso when there is a democracy in place already.

So if I invest in a US company, and your Congress passes a bill that is not to my liking I should ferment sedition (either openly or covertly) just to get my way? As I said, you have no concept of the term freedom...