Obama's Foreign Relations
 

Is it just me, or does it seem that at least weekly we hear a story about the administration bumbling over a meeting with foreign leaders. First the PM Brown incident, and now this: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/firs...ercharge-ties/

Is there ANYONE left in the State Department who pays any attention to detail? While, thus far, there are only minor flubs but this is certainly not a reassuring sign...

Add to these a Vice President who can't open his mouth without the words just haphazardly falling out, I'm thinking we should start being worried.

I'm not sure but maby there just trying to figure out what the hell is going on,
Or maby there just a little scared to take on the former governments crap.
Anyways only time will tell "give them some" and try not to be to quick in judgement....This is what we have like it or not.

Not that any thing i said made any sence.. whitch it did not sorry.

I think this is not news, of any importance, nor represents any serious lacking of attention to detail by the state department, for chrissakes...:haha::woot:

Obviously you don't understand the nuances of foreign relations.

OMG OMG OMG! US IS DOOMED!

Please, tell me something new.

Or was this thread REALLY about the poor translation on Clinton's case?

Frack me. Burn in hell and so on. :salute:

Oh, but obviously you do! :haha:

The world hates a solitary know-it-all, Aramike.

And, Dowly, you nailed it. :salute:

Aramike isn't solitary - I am a know it all too - just we seem to know it all differently. Your comment to him - The world hates a solitary know-it-all - is rather a know-it-all statement as well - and one that I would point out is in error as your implying he is solitary - and I have confirmed he isn't.

Honestly Enigma - its ok that your and Aramike or anyone else disagrees - but is there a reason you have to resort to immature little put downs and insults instead of debating facts? I hate to sound so "republican" - but in this case you seem to prove an oft quoted statement - democrats/liberals can't argue on facts, if you face them with some they instead turn to personal attacks and belittlement instead of discussion. I guess thats the new meaning of "inclusive" and "tolerance" - your included and tolerated as long as you don't disagree with the liberal view, otherwise your demeaned and belittled instead of beaten in the "arena of ideas"

And for the record - I don't agree with "modern" republicans on alot of things - this point however I think your proving Enigma.

Also - having debated Aramike on foreign policy - he isn't without some knowledge. While he and I disagree, his views had demonstrated a familiarity of the subject that the "average" US citizen does not have. You may also have such knowledge - and if so - I encourage you to debate the points vs your current tactic.

:rock:

Very succint. Kudos.

This is news?

Last time I checked nobody was getting ready to fire nukes over this so it is a non issue.

But another chance to attack the President as the dream is for him to fail.

Apparently it is. While it may not directly involve Obama, it may throw a bad light on him and all Americans, because he picked the people in his administration.

Here is another one.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/us_clinton_gaffes_odd

He picked the people in his administration, and as such, it is his responsibility. Unfortunately.

First of all, "getting ready to fire nukes" is a terrible idea for an indicator of what constitutes an issue.

Secondly, foreign policy decorum errors ARE news. But the New York Times thinks Obama's graying hair is more news-worthy.

So, I could have told you that Clinton is not the brightest star in the sky. But you cannot spell Clinton without the sickle and hammer:yeah:

I said when Obama appointed her that it was a move to get her out of her powerful seat in the US Senate and into a position where he can fire her. If she keeps giving him ammunition like this that won't be long in coming.

I stand corrected? :doh:

What a complete load of bubbling tripe. Go back and read the thread. My opinion was that it wasn't news, and not important, and overblown by the OP. His response to MY opinion, was that I "clearly" don't know anything about the subject. So please, spare me the whining. There was no debate to be had here.

Sure there is. The debate is whether or not you understand the nuances of foreign relations. I stated that you clearly don't, because if you did you'd understand that attention to detail is paramount. In my original post in this thread I did state that these were "minor flubs", but the question I was implying is how long before these minor details become major ones?

Also, what you clearly don't get is that there are entire taxpayer-funded bureaus within the State Department who are tasked with assuring these details are properly handled. Why they can't get these things right when that is their very job is worrying. How long before a world leader who's allergic to nuts is served a peanut dish at a state dinner?

Details are paramount in any world negotiations because they also effect the mood of the leaders who are negotiating. Furthermore, leaders more completely respect the negotiators who've done their homework.

I could go on and on about this, but I think I've made the point. I know that it's damned near impossible for you to criticize anything the Obama Administration does, but even Obama is probably feeling a tad embarrassed...