Reappraising my opinion on George Dubya

[Hakahura]

It's hard when one has to reappraise a former opinion.

Especially when it was a long held firm one.

I for long time held a particularly low opinion of the 43rd President of the United States. The way he won victory in the 2000 campaign and IMHO his disastrous foreign policy, which dragged my country (Great Britain) into 2 unnecessary wars. I breathed a sign of relief, along with many others when Barack Obama was elected.

How wrong I was.

For all the faults I saw in George Dubya, I believe he would have stood by a friend and supposed number one ally. I believe he would have understood the meaning of "Special Relationship". I believe he would remember who stood unequivocally at America's side immediately after September 11th 2001.

Not Barack Obama and his administration.

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/tobyyoung/100027397/et-tu-barack-america-betrays-britain-in-her-hour-of-need/

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article7040245.ece

Well Thankyou very much. It's not like we are asking for assistance in battle. We are not even asking for the opportunity to buy extra Sidewinder AMMs. Just the verbal backing of a friend.

So are we on our own?
Who knows?

Maybe the current US administration will wake up.
I certainly don't expect much in the way of diplomatic backing from our EU colleagues, let alone anything else.

However as a Nation we have a history of standing alone and fighting against the odds, come what may. So hope is far from lost and I wouldn't want to serve in any Military Force that has the misfortune of facing the UK in battle.

Who would have thought it.

G.W. Bush come back some things can be overlooked if not forgiven.

[AVGWarhawk]

Hmmmm...could be an explosive thread. Maybe not. I don't know. The US is kind of busy on the other side of the world. Endorse? Ok, must words. Provide physical assistance? Not sure. At any rate, US and UK have been Allies for very long time. I'm not sure this is really a fight the US should get involved in.

[GoldenRivet]

I'm not sure this is really a fight the US should get involved in.

perhaps.

but you can see the man's point :yep:

[Hakahura]

Hmmmm...could be an explosive thread. Maybe not. I don't know. The US is kind of busy on the other side of the world. Endorse? Ok, must words. Provide physical assistance? Not sure. At any rate, US and UK have been Allies for very long time. I'm not sure this is really a fight the US should get involved in.

So are we if you hadn't noticed.

Endorsement is all we ask for and considering the history between our 2 country's expect.

Yes it's an explosive subject and I'm quite aware of the multitude of people from around the world that frequent this forum. Which is why I have attempted to restrain the outrage and bile I feel at about Argentina's escalation of relations, the Rio Groups recent summit declaration and the American administration's convenient display of neutrality.

[Oberon]

Some back up would have been nice, but ah well, we'll know better for next time. :yep:

[SteamWake]

Wait I thought he was out of office and politics :06:

[AVGWarhawk]

perhaps.

but you can see the man's point :yep:

Absolutely! As stated, we are Allies! Seems Obama has tunnel vision and it is focused on Afghanistan. Remember..eye on the ball Obama?

[AVGWarhawk]

So are we if you hadn't noticed.

Endorsement is all we ask for and considering the history between our 2 country's expect.

Yes it's an explosive subject and I'm quite aware of the multitude of people from around the world that frequent this forum. Which is why I have attempted to restrain the outrage and bile I feel at about Argentina's escalation of relations, the Rio Groups recent summit declaration and the American administration's convenient display of neutrality.

We have a leader who is shall we say, wishy washy! I think that best discribes it. But yes, giving the devil his due Bush would not have blinked an eye. He would endorsed and then dispatched the Nimitz the region for fun.

[Oberon]

I think Hakahura is contrasting the difference in treatment of the United Kingdom by the administrations of Presidents Bush and Obama.
I've got to admit, there certainly seems to be no love lost between Obama and Brown and it shows in the deterioration in the 'special relationship' which has taken place over the past few months which has lead to this latest situation.
Although one might say that we cannot have it all ways, I recall many in the UK complaining when the UK followed the US into Iraq and Afghanistan, and perhaps after taking eight years of abuse, the United States is doing what many of its inhabitants have wanted it to do for some time. Go isolationist.
Since this latest incident with Argentina is not likely to spill over into war any time soon, and if it does then we will be able to face them one on one (albeit likely with greater casualties on both sides) then I don't see any particular problem in this current state of affairs other than the deep sense of anger that it stirs within those who have always seen the USA as a close friend of the UK.
Besides, to think of it, it's in the United States best interests to back us up politically in the issue of the Falklands because, heaven forbid, if it did come down to a war, well, we'd be out of Afghanistan in a shot and would most likely not bother going back. :hmmm:

[Oberon]

We have a leader who is shall we say, wishy washy! I think that best discribes it. But yes, giving the devil his due Bush would not have blinked an eye. He would endorsed and then dispatched the Nimitz the region for fun.

I agree, I'm not pro-Bush, never was, but one thing that I did notice about him was that he was loyal to his allies. I always thought his speech outside the G8 in Scotland on 7/7 was more powerful than Blairs, and I'll admit, it made me feel a little proud inside to be part of that 'special friendship'.

[Bubblehead1980]

I proudly voted for Bush for my first vote in 2004 because John Kerry wouldve been awful.I am no big fan of Bush though because he set conservatism back and created the enviroment that allowed Obama to get elected.Having said that, I would take GW Bush any day over this pos we have now.Pretty much the most dangerous man to ever hold the office.Bush doesnt have a chip on his shoulder about America and does not want to change us to a full on welfare state that ignores our allies and sucks up to enemies.Anyway, glad to hear you changed you opinion and dont worry obama and his crowd are on the way out next election.

[AVGWarhawk]

I agree, I'm not pro-Bush, never was, but one thing that I did notice about him was that he was loyal to his allies. I always thought his speech outside the G8 in Scotland on 7/7 was more powerful than Blairs, and I'll admit, it made me feel a little proud inside to be part of that 'special friendship'.


And I see you sport Ronald Reagan in you signature. Bush JR is a knock off of Bush Sr who was a knock off of Reagan. Both being the Greatest Generation who understood what it was to stand together. Obama? Not so much as he traveled the world forming his opinon on how it should go. It sucks. People were warned. Mistake was made. 3 years to go. What can I say?

[bookworm_020]

It seems like America has forgotten who it's friends are. The UK has stood beside the US through thick and thin. It's request from the US was for troops or military aid, just to back them up.

This will have flow on effects in the future, the UK may not back the US when has very little support in it's actions. If the falklands does develop, the UK would be in it's perfect right to pull its troops out of Afganistan and not bother to return.

[AVGWarhawk]

It seems like America has forgotten who it's friends are. The UK has stood beside the US through thick and thin. It's request from the US was for troops or military aid, just to back them up.

This will have flow on effects in the future, the UK may not back the US when has very little support in it's actions. If the falklands does develop, the UK would be in it's perfect right to pull its troops out of Afganistan and not bother to return.


Well, again, the folks here voted Obama. However, the foreign relations guy as to be Joe Biden. He sucks worse than Obama. If fact, did he even ask Biden about this? Probably not. Obama has health care up the wahzoo. Nothing is going to get done until it is passed or it is dumped. He wants to be in the history books for healthcare reform. Nothing more. Three years, three years. Hang in there...we are!

[GoldenRivet]

rest assured... the American people support you.

we just cant show our support until the next election. :03:

[AVGWarhawk]

rest assured... the American people support you.

we just cant show our support until the next election. :03:

Well, truth be told, I think Obama decision is going to be as popular as a trap door in a canoe. Bad move on his part. Oh well, the Queen mom can watch the DVD he got her...no wait...wrong format. :doh:

[Bubblehead1980]

lol and they accuse Bush of being ignorant?

[Takeda Shingen]

I am neither endorsing or refuting GWB. Still, the decision not to support the British was, as they say in the vernacular, lame. Poor form, Mr. President. Britian is the United States' staunchest ally, and even if you want to ignore the entirety of the 20th Century, you would have to note that the British government stood by the US through two very unpopular military conflicts. A little in the way of reciprocity would have been nice.

[Oberon]

I can't deny that AVG, Reagan and Thatcher were like brother and sister throughout the eighties. Much like Bush Jnr and Blair were post 2001.

Still, we'll see how things pan out. :hmmm:

[Oberon]

Oh well, the Queen mom can watch the DVD he got her...no wait...wrong format. :doh:

And add to that the slight fact that she died eight years ago ;)

Still, we could probably get a few quid for them on ebay, put it towards those carriers of ours. :yep:

[Skybird]

The issue is between Britain and Argentina. Not NATO, not the EU, not the OECD, not the US, not the OAS, not the USA have any seat at the table over this.

Friendship does not mean one must jump out of the window just because the "friend" decided to do that himself. When the "special relation" (which nowadays is overestimated anyway, imo) is demanded to be understood as Kadavergehorsam and uncritical loyalty und all circumstances, no matter what, then it is more curse than benefit.

There are pros and cons to both nations claism for the Falklands/Malvinas. for Britain speaks that the residents on the island want to be governed by the British. Against the British speaks that the empire is over, and for heaven's sake - those rocks are almost on the other side of a planet!

In the end, this row is only about one thing: ressources in the area of the islands. I'm not even aware how many or few. Just that the Brits considered it worthy enough to start drilling.

By effect, Obama is correct to stay neutral here. It's just that I do not rule out that his motives are different ones than those that seem natural. It could be another form of appeasing an increasingly rebellious "rest-America", and doping so over an issue that costs nothing and where the Us have no stakes. Other american nations have started to found an American organisation that explicitly excludes the US and Canada. I think that is nothign else but trying to reduce the meaning of the existing American organisation, and isolating US influence.

[Platapus]

I am sorry, but only the immature would consider a position of neutrality a betrayal. It is not like the American's are taking the Argentina side, we are not taking any side.

The attitude of "either you are with us or against us" is not the way mature governments interact. :nope:

It should also be remembered that the United States is a signatory of the Inter-American Treaty of Reciprocal Assistance of 1947 (aka the Rio Pact).

[Oberon]

The attitude of "either you are with us or against us" is not the way mature governments interact. :nope:


There are mature governments? :o

[Takeda Shingen]

Well, then I apologize for my immaturity.

[Hakahura]

Reading some interesting and mostly sympathetic views here tonight.
Glad you've all realised I only have a problem with the current Administrations view. Not America's.

Something a couple of people have indirectly brought up, possibly in Obama's defense does ring quite true though.
With our current (soon to be departed) PM, the one eyed short tempered lunatic AKA Broon. There's no wonder there has been a cooling of relations. I mean who in their right mind would want to be Gordon Brown's best mate?

[CaptainHaplo]

This is beyond a "neutrality" statement. Its like saying the US recognizes the "defacto" current goverment of the British Isles by the British Government, but if Germany invaded the UK then it would be a "bilateral" issue between the two countries and we wouldn't get involved. I mean after all - its a question of sovereignty that doesn't really affect the US right? This is nothing more than "well its not our problem so we don't care what happens".

What a slap and spit in the face to the UK. To my british friends - this moron does NOT speak for the people of the US. We are and will remain your friends, and yes - we DO recognize your claim. I also offer my profound apologies for the idiocy of the person that sits in the white house, and for any insulrt or harm his actions may cause.

In case nobody has noticed - an unwillingness to recognize the claim means that if a conflict were to break out, he has set the stage for a US refusal to live up to its treaty obligations regarding a common defense of an ally - because he simple doesn't recognize the claim itself! Stop and think about the message this sends to the rest of the world. What does it tell China about Taiwan? Or the Middle East about Israel?

This guy make's Bill Clinton's triangulation look like rocket science - he doesn't know which way the wind is blowing, so he just sits still in ignorance.

[Oberon]

I mean who in their right mind would want to be Gordon Brown's best mate?

Certainly no-one in his own party! :har:

I wonder how Cameron will fare with Obama? :hmmm:

[Hakahura]

This is beyond a "neutrality" statement. Its like saying the US recognizes the "defacto" current goverment of the British Isles by the British Government, but if Germany invaded the UK then it would be a "bilateral" issue between the two countries and we wouldn't get involved. I mean after all - its a question of sovereignty that doesn't really affect the US right? This is nothing more than "well its not our problem so we don't care what happens".

What a slap and spit in the face to the UK. To my british friends - this moron does NOT speak for the people of the US. We are and will remain your friends, and yes - we DO recognize your claim. I also offer my profound apologies for the idiocy of the person that sits in the white house, and for any insulrt or harm his actions may cause.

In case nobody has noticed - an unwillingness to recognize the claim means that if a conflict were to break out, he has set the stage for a US refusal to live up to its treaty obligations regarding a common defense of an ally - because he simple doesn't recognize the claim itself! Stop and think about the message this sends to the rest of the world. What does it tell China about Taiwan? Or the Middle East about Israel?

This guy make's Bill Clinton's triangulation look like rocket science - he doesn't know which way the wind is blowing, so he just sits still in ignorance.


Thankyou

[Onkel Neal]

Don't worry, Obsama is a one-timer.



It's hard when one has to reappraise a former opinion.

Especially when it was a long held firm one.

I for long time held a particularly low opinion of the 43rd President of the United States. The way he won victory in the 2000 campaign and IMHO his disastrous foreign policy, which dragged my country (Great Britain) into 2 unnecessary wars. I breathed a sign of relief, along with many others when Barack Obama was elected.

How wrong I was.

For all the faults I saw in George Dubya, I believe he would have stood by a friend and supposed number one ally. I believe he would have understood the meaning of "Special Relationship". I believe he would remember who stood unequivocally at America's side immediately after September 11th 2001.

Not Barack Obama and his administration.

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/tobyyoung/100027397/et-tu-barack-america-betrays-britain-in-her-hour-of-need/

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article7040245.ece

Well Thankyou very much. It's not like we are asking for assistance in battle. We are not even asking for the opportunity to buy extra Sidewinder AMMs. Just the verbal backing of a friend.

So are we on our own?
Who knows?

Maybe the current US administration will wake up.
I certainly don't expect much in the way of diplomatic backing from our EU colleagues, let alone anything else.

However as a Nation we have a history of standing alone and fighting against the odds, come what may. So hope is far from lost and I wouldn't want to serve in any Military Force that has the misfortune of facing the UK in battle.

Who would have thought it.

G.W. Bush come back some things can be overlooked if not forgiven.

[Platapus]

T
In case nobody has noticed - an unwillingness to recognize the claim means that if a conflict were to break out, he has set the stage for a US refusal to live up to its treaty obligations regarding a common defense of an ally -

That would be the treaty obligation for the United States to come to the defense of Argentina if they are attacked?

This is a complicated situation.

[OneToughHerring]

Don't worry, Obsama is a one-timer.

Really? Who's the new, rising star of the repugs who is completely squeky clean of the Iraq/Afghanistan war - taints and any other taints?

Palin? :haha:

Also, Hakahura, you didn't mention that you like Dick Cheney too. He's kinda coming after you.

http://punditkitchen.files.wordpress.com/2008/09/political-pictures-dick-cheney-guns-dont-kill-people.jpg

[AVGWarhawk]

Really? Who's the new, rising star of the repugs who is completely squeky clean of the Iraq/Afghanistan war - taints and any other taints?

Palin? :haha:

Also, Hakahura, you didn't mention that you like Dick Cheney too. He's kinda coming after you.



You don't get it OTH, the people of the US are finished with those in Congress drilling crap down our throats. Obama is part of that party. Now, your remark, were did Obummer come from? Outta nowhere. Who is to say his successor will not come outta nowhere? You will see, his first year sucked and it is not getting any better. He can blame the Bush years for so long. You also naturally assume it will be a republican. Who is to say another democrate would not take his place. :hmmm:

At any rate, Obama just spit on the shoes of the US most trusted friend. Right or wrong his lack of response sucks.

[Randomizer]

I fear wading in with a bit of history might be in bad taste but here goes. Pres. Obama's stand on this appears, at least on the surface, to conform to some 190-years of U.S. foriegn policy as it applies to European countries dealing with the America's.

That's right, since 1823 the United States have invoked the Monroe Doctrine to keep European powers out of either North or South America and it remains a conerstone of U.S. foriegn policy to this day. So one might consider that the current administration is actually correcting an anti-Monroe Doctrine precedent set by the Reagan Administration support of Maggie Thatcher in the 1982 war.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monroe_Doctrine

Wikipedia merely scratches the surface on the Doctrine's long-term effect upon U.S. policy.

Before getting attacked for dredging up some irrelevant zombie law, it should be noted that the Monroe Doctrine and it's assorted diplomatic corolleries have served America's interests remarkably well over the last two centuries. In the 1962 missile crisis President Kennedy put the Cuban quarentine on a solid international legal footing by invoking the Monroe Doctrine as a means to stop and search Soviet shipping heading for Cuba. To throw it out over the Falkland Islands cannot help America in any long term way.

Sorry, the UK needs American good will far more that the U.S. needs Britain. Some might think that sucks but there it is...

The Falkland's/Malvina's situation is an Anglo-Argentine quagmire that is the UK's problem, the U.S. has never made it a policy to support colonialism and the Falkland Islands have not been made a formal part of the UK, they remain a territorial dependancy and relic of the colonial era.

Britain should perhaps consider unilateral formal annexation of the Falklands to remove the dependancy status and make them as legally British as the Isle of Wight but this would violate several of the UN resolutions on the issue.

The only long-term solutions lie in the diplomatic realm where Britain can look after itself. President Obama has this file right and I suspect Dubya would not have behaved significantly different.

Edited for added content

[Tribesman]

Its not surprising the US government don't want to become involved on either side, both sides have legitimate claims.
The issue is up for negotiation the same as it has been negotiated on and off for the past 60 years.
I fear wading in with a bit of history might be in bad taste but here goes. Pres. Obama's stand on this appears, at least on the surface, to conform to some 190-years of U.S. foriegn policy as it applies to European countries dealing with the America's.


Yes, you can find lots of examples of America chosing its own path no matter what its "allies" thought it should be doing for them, Britain does exactly the same.

This is beyond a "neutrality" statement. Its like saying the US recognizes the "defacto" current goverment of the British Isles by the British Government, but if Germany invaded the UK then it would be a "bilateral" issue between the two countries and we wouldn't get involved. I mean after all - its a question of sovereignty that doesn't really affect the US right? This is nothing more than "well its not our problem so we don't care what happens".

Oh dear.:doh:
Anyone want to run through the government issue or the British Isles/UK thing to help out Haplo as he seems very confused.
BTW just for the fun of it, how many dejure governments does the British Isles have nowadays.

You gotta love the topic though , people getting upset because the american government won't help with some people from the overseas territories in on their distant islands, can we have the same people getting upset about the poor people from other overseas territories who were thrown out of their homes are not allowed live on their distant islands by the two governments in question even though their status is not a question of dispute.

What a slap and spit in the face to the UK. To my british friends - this moron does NOT speak for the people of the US. We are and will remain your friends, and yes - we DO recognize your claim. I also offer my profound apologies for the idiocy of the person that sits in the white house, and for any insulrt or harm his actions may cause.

It is quite interesting though, when has the US ever recognised the claim?
So is it case that (ridiculous though it may seem to some who just disagree with the current government) the leader of the country does speak for the country, and what he is saying is exactly the same all the other leaders of the country have said in modern times.

[Molon Labe]

http://billstclair.com/blog/images/george-bush-miss-me-yet.jpg

[August]

From Wikipedia:

The United States initially tried to mediate an end to the conflict. However, when Argentina refused the U.S. peace overtures, U.S. Secretary of State Alexander Haig announced that the United States would prohibit arms sales to Argentina and provide material support for British operations. Both Houses of the U.S. Congress passed resolutions supporting the U.S. action siding with the United Kingdom.

[Tribesman]

From Wikipedia:

And what does that have to do with recognition of soveriegnty?
Absolutely nothing.

[krashkart]

I don't know why anyone would want Gee Dub back in office. I don't think he should be anywhere near the Presidency again. I'm certain that if he hadn't opened a second war front the US wouldn't have been in near as much financial trouble when the economy took a nosedive.

The feeling I have about the Presidency these days is that no matter how much we believe in our Commander in Chief, he/she will most likely be making some really stupid decisions at some point. I don't really care who makes it to office anymore, as long as it's not GWB and as long as they don't accidentally push the button.

[Hakahura]

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article7055925.ece

[Kapitan_Phillips]

Well, oil once again claims another friendship it seems.

[Happy Times]

I think that the EU and every member country should back Britain openly.
For the union to have any credibility, these are the little tests it has to handle, otherwise anything bigger will bring it down fast.

One of those bigger threats is being open to blackmail with energy as a weapon, as we have seen in the 70s and very resent times also.

That is a reason, if no other, to support Britain.
The reserves of oil and gas in Falklands are not big in comparison to those that can be found the Middle East or Russia, but they are on British and EU soil.

If EU fails this test it deserves to die a quick death.

[August]

Well, oil once again claims another friendship it seems.

Isn't he the candidate that you favored in the last election? I guess you got what you asked for...

[Tribesman]

I think that the EU and every member country should back Britain openly.

Thats difficult when some of those member countries have their own territorial disputes regarding overseas claims and some of them even have disputes with Britain over territory.

The reserves of oil and gas in Falklands are not big in comparison to those that can be found the Middle East or Russia, but they are on British and EU soil.

If they are Britsh soil is a matter of dispute, but they are most certainly not EU soil
So your reason fails the test at the first fence.

[Happy Times]

Thats difficult when some of those member countries have their own territorial disputes regarding overseas claims and some of them even have disputes with Britain over territory.


If they are Britsh soil is a matter of dispute, but they are most certainly not EU soil
So your reason fails the test at the first fence.

You can start your legal hairsplitting but they are regarded as overseas territories, closely associated to the union, and their inhabitants are EU citizens.

They are wiewed by the union as strategically important outposts and EU is clearly planning to integrate them fully.
Not to just leave them to be annexed by who ever comes claiming them.
I want the EU to fulfill its announced commitments if necessary.
Stating this to the Argentinians would be a good start.

[OneToughHerring]

If the UK expects EU to do it's territorial claims for it then it would be nice if the UK would at least join the EMU. Otherwise it's kind of strange for the EU to do UK's dirty work.

[Tribesman]

You can start your legal hairsplitting
Since the whole issue is one of legality and recognition of legality then legal hairslpitting is the only issue.

They are wiewed by the union as strategically important outposts and EU is clearly planning to integrate them fully.

Yeah right:har::har::har::har:
Can you find any motion where there is an attempt to even remotely do anything like integrating them fully?
Stating this to the Argentinians would be a good start.
Stating that it is an issue between two countries and they can only resolve the issue through negotiations is the only possible good start....which just happens to be the declared position of most countries.

[Stealth Hunter]

At any rate, Obama just spit on the shoes of the US most trusted friend. Right or wrong his lack of response sucks.

Fact: This statement is an opinion.

The truth of the matter is simple: the two sides that are the primary belligerents in this issue are Britain and Argentina. It's been this way for decades. Any other nation throwing their thoughts in on it is doing nothing more than not minding their own goddamn business. The United States has bigger things to worry about right now. Taking sides on this debate is not going to solve any of the problems here at home; how can we expect ourselves to police the world if we can't fix our own troubles first? With that said, we as a country are obliged to do nothing- Obama as our president is obliged to do nothing. And that's that.

Anyway, glad to hear you changed you opinion and dont worry obama and his crowd are on the way out next election.

It must be quite an amazing talent, being able to predict the future 2.5 years from now I mean. I'm curious to know, will the United States and/or Israel attack Iran within that time? Will the Taliban finally be destroyed? How will the stock market be doing in future years? Will any world leaders be assassinated? Any major terrorist attacks I should be warned about? I'm sure the world would be the better for knowing (I know I would), so why don't you inform us?

[Torvald Von Mansee]

I proudly voted for Bush for my first vote in 2004 because John Kerry wouldve been awful.I am no big fan of Bush though because he set conservatism back and created the enviroment that allowed Obama to get elected.Having said that, I would take GW Bush any day over this pos we have now.Pretty much the most dangerous man to ever hold the office.Bush doesnt have a chip on his shoulder about America and does not want to change us to a full on welfare state that ignores our allies and sucks up to enemies.Anyway, glad to hear you changed you opinion and dont worry obama and his crowd are on the way out next election.

You remind me of one of those naive college liberals, but from the other side.