PDA

View Full Version : Obama vs UK?



Daze
9 Aug 2010, 05:34pm
I believe Obama has a personal beef with the UK and he takes every opportunity to show to the American electorate that he doesn't like Britain. There are plenty of possible reasons why he wouldn't like Britain and I think his behaviour towards the UK during his presidency has been cold beyond casual disregard.

A lot of the reasons I think is the perception in the US that the Bush administration was close to Britain and Tony Blair, so in order to distance himself from this, Obama has made an effort to appear to be openly treating Gordan Brown with disregard and indifference as a display to his electorate. Why does Britain deserve special treatment you might ask? The UK has been a significant partner in both Afghanistan and Iraq and quite a strong supporter of American foreign policy, so for better or for worse I feel George Bush's almost VIP like treatment of Tony Blair and Britain in general was quite appropriate.

Obama has displayed disregard for Britain many times during his presidency, for example, the Obama adminstrations stance on the Falkland Islands was quite clearly in favour of Argentina, and he refused to acknowledge British territorial soverignty over the islands, refused to provide any diplomatic support and actually refered to than as "Malvinas", rather than as the Falkland Islands.

As for reasons why he would take issue with the British, I remember reading a while ago that Obama's grand father was tortured and held as a political prisoner by the British in Kenya. All of this, including the recent disaster with BP in which Obama repeatedly called it British Petroleum although it hasn't been known as that for over 10 years. I don't know whether this has made Obama feel contempt towards the UK but I wouldn't be surpised if it did.

Am I blowing this out of proportion?

Thoughts?

PotshotPolka
9 Aug 2010, 06:13pm
I never heard anything about a diplomatic row over the Fauklands, and objectively I can say the Argentinians were kinda belligerent there since the only thing on the islands they occupied were white people and sheep.

As far as BP goes, I didn't know they formally changed to "BP" instead of it just being an acronym. What I do know is that kicking up dirt about whose nation licensed the drilling, whose environmental policy and regulations governed the rig (was the US I believe, I think we have exclusive economic rights to that area of ocean even though its out of territorial waters) among other jurisdictional jugglings made for a good media frenzy while the government was able to pressure BP into taking the bulk of the PR hit and put up billions in reprieve money. It was the government playing hardball to prevent any opposition groups from lambasting Obama for his "Katrina", and while the actual corking of the well went rather badly, I perceive the level of coordination and actual speed and intensity of the clean up and reaction as well done.


Honestly, I don't pay much attention to the President, in that I don't give a shit about his comments about policemen and college professors. All I know about his family is that he has two daughters, a pissy little dog, and what appears to be a fashion designer for a wife. For all the staring down between heads of state and government that may offer insight into a President's personal feelings I'd honestly dig into what happens at economic summits and the diplomatic corps, that's where countries hammer out their beefs with one another.

SgtJoo
10 Aug 2010, 05:43pm
Eh who cares.

If he can divert hostile attention to a nation that's a punchbag for it then he's doing a pretty good job I guess.

lol@Falklands though. I think it's a definitive thing that the US has a fucked up policy in regards to South America.

Dollar diplomacy baby.

Jaffa
10 Aug 2010, 06:43pm
I don't think its a Obama-specific thing. US politicians/politics seems to be fine with attacking Britain (and other nations) when it serves to further a goal/cause. look at the republicans and healthcare bill, jumping on the NHS and vilifying it simply as a way to gather support to oppose Obama.

c0bra067
18 Aug 2010, 04:23pm
semi bump
essentially just summing up what everyone else said,
i don't really think he has a vendetta against the uk. if anything, i think obama likens the somewhat socialized government of the uk over the us, in relation to his proposed polices. i think this whole anti uk thing is being blown up over the fact that a foreign big non-union corporate conglomerate fucked up and he can attack it for political points without targeting americans directly.

Jazzyy
18 Aug 2010, 07:03pm
It's a good thing, even if it is the UK which is a militiary ally in rare occasions. The U.S. needs to start severing connections to EVERYONE. We need to destroy our oil dependency along with relations to China and quit offshore drilling and work on renewable resources more efficiently, if we can do this, China will eventually fuck up and fall with their oil dependency and will be set back several years, but it will not affect us so long as we keep to isolating ourselves from the rest of the world like we had in the early 40s and late 20s. Even after China's economic fuck up we need to make sure not to reopen relations, isolation is key here especially in our current times.

PotshotPolka
19 Aug 2010, 04:41pm
It's a good thing, even if it is the UK which is a militiary ally in rare occasions. The U.S. needs to start severing connections to EVERYONE. We need to destroy our oil dependency along with relations to China and quit offshore drilling and work on renewable resources more efficiently, if we can do this, China will eventually fuck up and fall with their oil dependency and will be set back several years, but it will not affect us so long as we keep to isolating ourselves from the rest of the world like we had in the early 40s and late 20s. Even after China's economic fuck up we need to make sure not to reopen relations, isolation is key here especially in our current times.

I'm not going to try and insult you but the isolationist/protectionist policies of 29-36 greatly increased the effects of the Great Depression by shattering global trade and also made Europe's break with the already greatly defunct League of Nations charter to appease Germany a reality.

In regards to "energy independence" or for that matter the mythical idea of economic isolation (same thing as independence right in your definition I suppose) it's foolhardy. Look up where ingredients in your food comes from, where clothing is made, where the parts in the keyboard and your computer are fabricated. It's called GLOBALIZATION for a reason, and taking a step backwards is a completely fucktarded idea for a variety of reasons.

Feel free to fire back, I have lots of ammunition for this fight.

c0bra067
20 Aug 2010, 11:30am
I'm not going to try and insult you but the isolationist/protectionist policies of 29-36 greatly increased the effects of the Great Depression by shattering global trade and also made Europe's break with the already greatly defunct League of Nations charter to appease Germany a reality.

enough said. if you feel that potshot is even slightly wrong jazzy, take an economics class. if you think an isolationist policy is ever going to happen, you might as well believe in marxism. its not going to happen. the reach of america to foreign countries and likewise extends FAR beyond simple oil (and the capital that oil is exchanged for). at this moment you may be paying your mortgage to thai investors. your phone battery was made from heavy metals in europe, designed in the us, and manufactured somewhere in asia. wake up.

Jazzyy
20 Aug 2010, 08:49pm
I'm not going to try and insult you but the isolationist/protectionist policies of 29-36 greatly increased the effects of the Great Depression by shattering global trade and also made Europe's break with the already greatly defunct League of Nations charter to appease Germany a reality.

In regards to "energy independence" or for that matter the mythical idea of economic isolation (same thing as independence right in your definition I suppose) it's foolhardy. Look up where ingredients in your food comes from, where clothing is made, where the parts in the keyboard and your computer are fabricated. It's called GLOBALIZATION for a reason, and taking a step backwards is a completely fucktarded idea for a variety of reasons.

Feel free to fire back, I have lots of ammunition for this fight.
It's better to start making renewable energy now, rather than later. Here's my theory, in advance. The cost of oil will eventually get to high, as it becomes harder to get (inflation), so that we will move onto more renewable resources. I can obviously tell you there are a variety of problems with this, for one, we can start developing on renewable resources, we'll say, wind energy. And then about 35 years down the road we figure out how to make renewable coal, which we will call Coal-R. Now we just spent the last 35 years working on wind energy and came out with Coal-R, significantly reducing what we worked on for 35 years to uselessness.
But there is also advantages, like I said. The cost of oil will be extremely high until it rivals the cost of Wind Energy/Solar Power/etc. And if people think it's high right now, wait until we start running out. Now I guess I should rephrase my earlier statement, we won't really "run out" of oil, but if we prepare for the costs and are able to predict the point in time where oil outweighs in cost compared to X energy, we can definitely jump up a step in the economy. Hell, we could even be a main provider of it if it's that sort of energy. So even after oil beings to cost shitloads, it will still be sold until the markets can adapt to the new technology, it's just the people who own it will eventually get dirt poor. Hence why we need to start revving up our economical engines.

But looking back now isolation just wouldn't work with our two party system, so yeah. But in theory isolation was the reason we didn't go into debt up until we quit being isolated (and that thing called the great depression, etc, rise of oil). But either way.


And yeah, I've never taken an economics class, a political class, etc. Most of my opinions aren't even mine, but moreover other people's opinions but twisted with my own words and mixed with a little bit of someone else's opinions. I'm an avid fan of anything that isn't free market capitalism at this point.