Even more so than before because not only is he arrogant, but now you owe him your life.

 

Exactly. His arrogance would be the first thing I'd get over though.

Forgive me. Maybe I'm an over zealous patriot. I believe our good deeds as a nation outweigh the bad by a bunch. If you don't see it that way, so be it. I respect your opinion.

You may be misinterpreting my opinion.

 

If we're counting good deeds, particularly in terms of disaster relief, then of course I don't think that.

 

But when it comes to meddling into the political affairs of other countries, most of our motives have been self-serving.

You may be misinterpreting my opinion.

 

If we're counting good deeds, particularly in terms of disaster relief, then of course I don't think that.

 

But when it comes to meddling into the political affairs of other countries, most of our motives have been self-serving.

 

Not a good enough historian to debate the "most of out motives have been self-serving", but a whole lot of the meddling (not in terms of disaster relief) had a lot to do about human rights and encouraging democracy. I understand that democracy might not be what many of these countries (leaders) want, but a whole lot of the people in those countries want it bad.

I understand opening a dialog with many of the foreign leaders with whom previously there was none, but I just feel Obama needs to take the LEAD in directing where that dialog goes. To just be present and let these leaders hit repeat on their hit track serves no purpose.

 

I think Ortega, Chavez, et al simply like Obama showing up and listening because they think he might be sympathetic to their Socialist ideology.

 

Given the course the U.S. has taken thus far under President Obama, that might be a reasonable assumption.

Not a good enough historian to debate the "most of out motives have been self-serving", but a whole lot of the meddling (not in terms of disaster relief) had a lot to do about human rights and encouraging democracy. I understand that democracy might not be what many of these countries (leaders) want, but a whole lot of the people in those countries want it bad.

Decades ago, our meddling was just as much about what was best for American business interests as it was for "encouraging democracy." We've cultivated anti-American feelings on more than one continent, and the problems we're having in the Middle East have as much to do with that as anything else.

Decades ago, our meddling was just as much about what was best for American business interests as it was for "encouraging democracy." We've cultivated anti-American feelings on more than one continent, and the problems we're having in the Middle East have as much to do with that as anything else.

 

I was waiting for someone to say this. Though I love America, our history isn't what is taught in your average High School History class. Actually, so-called "encouraging democracy" was a way to get away with getting some of the things we have wanted in the past. Not saying that we haven't done many great things for all kinds of countries, but US foreign affairs haven't always been with the best of intentions. We do have things to apologize for, as do most other industrialized countries.

I was waiting for someone to say this. Though I love America, our history isn't what is taught in your average High School History class. Actually, so-called "encouraging democracy" was a way to get away with getting some of the things we have wanted in the past. Not saying that we haven't done many great things for all kinds of countries, but US foreign affairs haven't always been with the best of intentions. We do have things to apologize for, as do most other industrialized countries.

 

 

I will take exception to the best of intentions part. They were done with the best of intentions for American interests, as they should be done. Our actions should always be in our best interest plain and simple. We should harbor no idealism as it blinds us to practical solutions.

I don't see the problem with Obama's comments. Honestly, what should have been done? If he gets up and walks out on the proceedings he looks even worse and would be blasted for that. If he responds to the comments by Ortega and doesn't do so favorably, he gets blasted, and if he takes the road he took, he gets blasted. Apparently it as a no win situation for Barack.

 

But I applaud him for trying to open up diplomatic relationships with countries that we previously didn't have. I don't know if anyone else has realized this but we are not the most popular country around the world, and I contribute a lot of these poor relationships to the way that the Bush administration conducted their foreign affairs. Obama was elected under the mantra of change and it looks like he is trying to make some changes to this country and I think people should give him more than 99 days before they start to throw him under the bus; we all knew he wouldn't make our problems go away over night.

I will take exception to the best of intentions part. They were done with the best of intentions for American interests, as they should be done. Our actions should always be in our best interest plain and simple. We should harbor no idealism as it blinds us to practical solutions.

One problem is that, in many other parts of the world feel, the affected parties felt that our actions were as much exploitative in nature as anything else.

One problem is that, in many other parts of the world feel, the affected parties felt that our actions were as much exploitative in nature as anything else.

 

I agree.

I will take exception to the best of intentions part. They were done with the best of intentions for American interests, as they should be done. Our actions should always be in our best interest plain and simple. We should harbor no idealism as it blinds us to practical solutions.

 

I see where you are coming from.

 

The Chilean Coup in the 70's.

 

The training of the Shah's secret police and propping up his monarchy.

 

The similar treatment of Tieu's regime in South Vietnam.

 

The Contras in Nicaragua (after we supported the original coup in the 30's)and the despots in El Salvador during the 80's.

 

Just to name only some 20th century moments.

 

Guatamala around 1960.

 

 

 

I think the US government acted in it's best interests (and business). As long as we don't declare others who have done the same as despots it does make sense. :idunno:

I see where you are coming from.

 

The Chilean Coup in the 70's.

 

The training of the Shah's secret police and propping up his monarchy.

 

The similar treatment of Tieu's regime in South Vietnam.

 

The Contras in Nicaragua (after we supported the original coup in the 30's)and the despots in El Salvador during the 80's.

 

Just to name only some 20th century moments.

 

Guatamala around 1960.

 

 

 

I think the US government acted in it's best interests (and business). As long as we don't declare others who have done the same as despots it does make sense. :idunno:

 

I didn't say that we always thought through the potential outcomes. If the long term view is going to be best for us then I am fine with it. We cannot always predict how things will turn out. Shoot if I could predict the future I would be living on a private island by now.

:dancingpa

I didn't say that we always thought through the potential outcomes. If the long term view is going to be best for us then I am fine with it. We cannot always predict how things will turn out. Shoot if I could predict the future I would be living on a private island by now.

 

I think we did think through possible consequences but were unconcerned with what happened to the "little people" of these countries as long as our trade remained cheap.

 

It was a disregard for the consequences that is the problem.

:dancingpa

 

I think we did think through possible consequences but were unconcerned with what happened to the "little people" of these countries as long as our trade remained cheap.

 

It was a disregard for the consequences that is the problem.

 

I am not entirely sure what you are trying to say in relation to what I said. Are you trying to say that a lack of compassion for the poor and downtrodden is the problem?

:dancingpa

 

I think we did think through possible consequences but were unconcerned with what happened to the "little people" of these countries as long as our trade remained cheap.

 

It was a disregard for the consequences that is the problem.

You do realize that free trade benefits the poor of foreign countries, right?