Getbig Bodybuilding, Figure and Fitness Forums
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: Benny B on July 11, 2008, 05:51:03 AM
-
Barack Obama is coming: Europe can scarcely contain itself. The Democratic contender for the White House is crossing the Atlantic to burnish his credentials as a world leader. Europeans just want to cheer.
by Phillip Stevens (FT)
July 10, 2008
I have my doubts as to whether Mr Obama will profit much from a series of photo-opportunities with the old continent’s tired and beleaguered leaders. The Middle East leg of his trip may make more news at home. The crowds in Europe will be another story. When he steps out of his pre-presidential limousine Mr Obama can expect to be greeted as a messiah.
As far as Europe is concerned, the US has made its choice. The pundits in Washington may only now be speculating about the possibility that Mr Obama could win by a landslide. Europe has already decided: it will get the American president it deserves. The ballot on November 4 is no more than an irksome formality.
Europeans are almost jealous. After all, when did they last get to cast a vote in a “transformational election”? Even those whose sympathies are with the Republican John McCain are caught up in Obamamania. My bet is that David Cameron, Britain’s Conservative leader, will be as eager as Prime Minister Gordon Brown to catch some of Mr Obama’s stardust.
Only Carla Bruni, partner and chanteuse to France’s Nicolas Sarkozy, can compete in the glamour stakes. The other day an old friend – by day a level-headed diplomat – went so far as to muse about an Obama-Bruni match. Now that, he remarked only half-whimsically, would give global politics a truly handsome couple. Mr Sarkozy, I suppose, might have something to say on the subject. So, one imagines, might Michelle Obama. But watch the body language when her husband turns up at the Elysée Palace.
Youth and charisma are not the only reason Senator Obama stirs envy among Europe’s leaders. He has done what they can only dream of. He has drawn the disenchanted back into politics. Who else has inspired a new political movement, has raised an army of 1.7m volunteers and can boast more than 1m campaign donors?
Little wonder Mr Sarkozy, Mr Brown and Germany’s Angela Merkel are keen to touch Mr Obama’s sleeve. Unsurprising also that Ms Merkel is reluctant to give him a podium at Berlin’s Brandenburg Gate. It was there Ronald Reagan issued a famous call for the Soviet Union to “tear down this wall”. Mr Obama would draw a crowd to shame the former president – and, more importantly, any serving European leader.
Sober voices struggle to be heard. This week I heard Bruce Katz, a vice-president of Washington’s Brookings Institution, lead an excellent discussion on the future of US politics. Inter alia, Mr Katz’s presentation underscored the gap between the preoccupation of US voters with domestic issues – the economy, energy prices, jobs, healthcare, the state of the cities – and the casual assumption of Europeans that the election is about nothing but US foreign policy.
I suspect that his caution – the election, he told the Smith Institute in London, is a competitive race – was lost on his audience. The thought that resonated was that the outcome would turn on the voters’ judgment of whether Mr Obama had the character to match the charisma. On this pivotal issue, Europeans have already made up their minds: Mr Obama is the real thing.
During George W. Bush’s presidency anti-Americanism has been rife. The old affection, though, has not been extinguished. Nor has the ingrained admiration for American ideals. Mr Obama provides a reason to swap the jeers for applause.
Deep in European foreign ministries, of course, there are hard-bitten diplomats cautioning against all this euphoria. The new president, whether Mr Obama or Mr McCain, will face the same problems. He will put the US national interest first. And the leader of what is still the world’s most powerful nation will never think like a woolly postmodern European.
Mr Obama plans to visit Iraq, Afghanistan and Israel as well as Europe’s three biggest capitals. He will see for himself, these diplomats say, the intractability of the challenges. It is not enough that he is an engaging fellow; and, of itself, engagement will not persuade Iran to surrender its nuclear ambitions.
I think these diplomats are overly pessimistic about Mr Obama’s ambition to change the rules of the game. Those in Europe’s corridors of power have grown so used to timorous politicians that they have forgotten the power of politics.
But you can see the dangers for the Democratic candidate. Adulation comes with a price tag. If he does win in November – and this columnist, at least, is sticking with the conditional – then expectations in Europe may well be even higher than at home.
I have written before about the contradiction in Europe’s view: a demand for US power and a deep distrust of it. Thus on the one hand there is a certain satisfaction that the debacle in Iraq has demonstrated the limits of Washington’s reach. America may still be the sole superpower but it is no longer the hyperpuissance. It must rely on others (Europeans) if it is to act effectively in the world.
On the other hand, there is an assumption that it is still America’s job to fix things. Why should Europe spend more on defence when the US has more ships and warplanes than the rest of the world put together? Of course, Europe shelters under the US security umbrella. But do not ask it to risk too much of its own blood and treasure in the effort to make the world a safer place.
I exaggerate only slightly. Everywhere I go in Europe, I come across laundry lists of demands on the next US president – whether it is Mr Obama or Mr McCain.
The US must embrace a low-carbon economy as a prelude to signing up to a successor to the Kyoto protocol. It must show due respect to the United Nations as the fount of legitimacy in relations between states. It should join the International Criminal Court and commit itself more fully to the chemical weapons convention. It should breathe new life into the nuclear non-proliferation treaty. Oh, and by the way, it must broker peace in the Middle East, leave Iraq a peaceful democracy and make a viable state out of Afghanistan.
It is worth saying that many of the suggested policy shifts are in US as well as European interests. The central foreign policy task of the next president will be to rebuild the legitimacy of US leadership. But as they cheer Mr Obama, Europeans need to make up their minds about what they have to offer.
-
I think one of the reasons certain European leaders are excited about Obama is that he may take the US more in the direction of European nations...with more gov control and more socialistic flavor, which eventually makes countries except mediocrity.
-
I think one of the reasons certain European leaders are excited about Obama is that he may take the US more in the direction of European nations...with more gov control and more socialistic flavor, which eventually makes countries except mediocrity.
I diasgree strongly. It is sheer foreign policy, if you read the interviews, talk the people etc that is what they say. The perpetual war, the interference, the deaths etc.
-
I think one of the reasons certain European leaders are excited about Obama is that he may take the US more in the direction of European nations...with more gov control and more socialistic flavor, which eventually makes countries except mediocrity.
I agree, now turn you air conditioner up to 78, that's an order from Obama.
-
...
I have my doubts as to whether Mr Obama will profit much from a series of photo-opportunities with the old continent’s tired and beleaguered leaders. ...
Sounds like a perfect description of John Mc Cain. :o
-
I agree, now turn you air conditioner up to 78, that's an order from Obama.
Es mui caliente en mi casa!
-
Es mui caliente en mi casa!
You do live in a swamp.
-
You do live in a swamp.
Si Senior. Mis agua es verde.
-
Sounds like a perfect description of John Mc Cain. :o
Welcome back, AE.
Sorry your girl, Hillary, didn't make the cut.
-
I think one of the reasons certain European leaders are excited about Obama is that he may take the US more in the direction of European nations...with more gov control and more socialistic flavor, which eventually makes countries except mediocrity.
I think you meant to say "accept mediocrity", although... why would you say something like that? What is mediocre about Wester Europe?
-
I agree, now turn you air conditioner up to 78, that's an order from Obama.
well in bushes world the economy sucks so bad that u cant afford to keep it at 60..
what sometimes i simply take absolute glee in is tha fact that most suffering of this shit economy are the middle classes that voted bush in....poetic justice! ;D
-
European will have an easier time influencing the US to implement the "slow communism" that is in the EU today (AKA socialism).
-
European will have an easier time influencing the US to implement the "slow communism" that is in the EU today (AKA socialism).
Being an ideologue is always dangerous; there is some truth in many politcal systems; look at Scandinavia; it is BOTH socialist and capitalist.
-
Being an ideologue is always dangerous; there is some truth in many politcal systems; look at Scandinavia; it is BOTH socialist and capitalist.
Give it 10 years, my prediction is Scandinavia is heading to the social decay seen in UK and France.
-
Give it 10 years, my prediction is Scandinavia is heading to the social decay seen in UK and France.
What's the solution?
-
But it's not even about influencing us in any manner. I think that the way Europeans see the US nowadays is a country whose government has run amock and with whom they cannot, unless you're Lithuania or Belarus (you know sort-a-countries,) negotiate.
I agree with how Europeans see things: Give power to the UN and if there's a conflict between countries let consensus reign and come to a decision that satisfies the majority of the countries and is accepted by both sides. Although that is a very difficult thing to do when you have the most powerful country in the world conducting its foreign policy with state terrorism and little regard for (other) human life.
For our government the Charter of the United Nations is an obstacle primarily because our government values money more than it values human life.
My 2 cents.
-
Give it 10 years, my prediction is Scandinavia is heading to the social decay seen in UK and France.
What social decay are you referring to?
-
What's the solution?
My influence from the voters, for example, in Britain it's high time for there to be a general election - EVERY citizen wants a general election but fat bastard Gordon Brown won't call one.
General elections every 2 year maximum.
More influence on other matters to do with the EU, e.g. the Lisbon treaty, it was promised to British citizens we would get to vote, that was stolen from us by the Labour government, we had to let the Irish bail us out for fucks sake...
Plus more shit like this: http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=223644.0
-
What social decay are you referring to?
Practically uncontrolled immigration, political correctness, welfare states, not enough say by the citizens of the EU.
-
Practically uncontrolled immigration, political correctness, welfare states, not enough say by the citizens of the EU.
Sounds like they are just trying to emulate the USA. ;D :-\
-
Sounds like they are just trying to emulate the USA. ;D :-\
Isn't there a 4 year tern around for elections in the USA? Britain doesn't even have that. It's sickening to think the controlling party has say on when an election is called.
British system = a strange mix of democracy, communism, socialism, fascism.
-
Give it 10 years, my prediction is Scandinavia is heading to the social decay seen in UK and France.
But you are the Nordic Superman, you must be able to save Scandinavia right? ::)
-
Welcome back, AE.
Sorry your girl, Hillary, didn't make the cut.
Thanks w8tlftr. It is a shame, on the other hand she will probably be senate majority leader in a few years. ;)
-
Isn't there a 4 year tern around for elections in the USA? Britain doesn't even have that. It's sickening to think the controlling party has say on when an election is called.
British system = a strange mix of democracy, communism, socialism, fascism.
An election doesn't guarantee improvement. Never underestimate the stupidity of the voter.
George Bush reelected in 2004. Need I say more?
-
But you are the Nordic Superman, you must be able to save Scandinavia right? ::)
Yeah, I will do when the time calls, until then, the people must see the errors of their way.
An election doesn't guarantee improvement. Never underestimate the stupidity of the voter.
George Bush reelected in 2004. Need I say more?
Frivolous, I'm a staunch believer in democracy. You think everything would be hunky dory if Bush hadn't been elected? We shall never know.
-
Yeah, I will do when the time calls, until then, the people must see the errors of their way.
the arabs in the rough neighbourhoods must be shivering in their pants ::)
-
the arabs in the rough neighbourhoods must be shivering in their pants ::)
Why, are they cold? The ovens I'm preparing should heat them up! ;D
-
You think everything would be hunky dory if Bush hadn't been elected? We shall never know.
No, but I do believe things would be much better than they are. Exactly what part of "worst American President ever" don't you understand?
-
Practically uncontrolled immigration, political correctness, welfare states, not enough say by the citizens of the EU.
Uncontrolled immigration? Ok, maybe they could do a better job of it, although stopping or controlling immigration is imposible now, before and 600 years from now. We in the US a prime examples of that (just an example! I'm not trying to bring the US case into the mix!). Here in the US we're pretty much facing the same issues as in Europe and I wouldn't say we're a society in decay. In fact I'd say that socially speaking we're MUCH better off now than 60 years ago, and certainly much, much better off than 160 years ago. And I presume things will only get better.
Political correctness? Nope, I wouldn't call it political correctness, I'd call it class, and they have plenty more than we do. European countries accomplish pretty much the same things we do without having to go around the world killing thousands of people. Europe was a ravaged and COMPLETELY devastated continent after two world wars, and look, after 50 years they're pretty much (economically) rebuilt their continent to the point that they're pretty much even with us.
Welfare states? Are you fucking kidding me?! Light years beyond what we have. Even a blind man can see that!!!
Not enough say by the citizens of the EU? Ok, here in the US only 35-40% of the voting population actually vote, here in the US elections are regularly bought or stolen. Compare that with Europe, where voting turnout is regularly > 65-80% of the voting population and where people are WAY more politically active than us.
I don't get you man!
-
No, but I do believe things would be much better than they are. Exactly what part of "worst American President ever" don't you understand?
What part of "frivolous" and "irrelevant" don't you understand? The people should be able to vote on major issues in Britain. Whether they chose the right or the wrong is up to them. Not a dictator.
Bush might well be the worst US President, where did I show my opinion on this matter?
-
Uncontrolled immigration? Ok, maybe they could do a better job of it, although stopping or controlling immigration is imposible now, before and 600 years from now. We in the US a prime examples of that (just an example! I'm not trying to bring the US case into the mix!). Here in the US we're pretty much facing the same issues as in Europe and I wouldn't say we're a society in decay. In fact I'd say that socially speaking we're MUCH better off now than 60 years ago, and certainly much, much better off than 160 years ago. And I presume things will only get better.
Political correctness? Nope, I wouldn't call it political correctness, I'd call it class, and they have plenty more than we do. European countries accomplish pretty much the same things we do without having to go around the world killing thousands of people. Europe was a ravaged and COMPLETELY devastated continent after two world wars, and look, after 50 years they're pretty much (economically) rebuilt their continent to the point that they're pretty much even with us.
Welfare states? Are you fucking kidding me?! Light years beyond what we have. Even a blind man can see that!!!
Not enough say by the citizens of the EU? Ok, here in the US only 35-40% of the voting population actually vote, here in the US elections are regularly bought or stolen. Compare that with Europe, where voting turnout is regularly > 65-80% of the voting population and where people are WAY more politically active than us.
I don't get you man!
This current period may be better than 50 years ago, but this current period isn't the best it has been.
Most of your statements, and mine are personal interpretations. I have lived in the US and UK and several EU countries to have a nice grasp of how things are in the EU. I do have some experience, I don't base my opinions on nonsensical things.
Oh, and I'm certainly not against immigration. Illegal and/or immgration that doesn't benefit the country is specifically what I am against.
-
This current period may be better than 50 years ago, but this current period isn't the best it has been.
Most of your statements, and mine are personal interpretations. I have lived in the US and UK and several EU countries to have a nice grasp of how things are in the EU. I do have some experience, I don't base my opinions on nonsensical things.
Oh, and I'm certainly not against immigration. Illegal and/or immgration that doesn't benefit the country is specifically what I am against.
And how exactly do you measure "better" or "best" in terms of a particular society? I mean, that is a subjective concept. If you ask a post-abolition African American what times he'd rather live in 99.99% of them would tell you "post-abolition," while if you throw the slave owner the same question, let's be realistic, he'd most likely tell you "pre-abolition". Now we all know that slavery was wrong and that the post-abolition period was a BETTER American society. Although some people will disagree. Don't you agree?
I've also lived in a European country for many, many years (Spain) and are fairly well-traveled (and open minded) and frankly do not base my opinions on nonesense.
Immigration is needed in every country at all levels and times. Without immigration a country turns into a a stale society capable of the best and worst (look at Nazi Germany).
-
And how exactly do you measure "better" or "best" in terms of a particular society? I mean, that is a subjective concept. If you ask a post-abolition African American what times he'd rather live in 99.99% of them would tell you "post-abolition," while if you throw the slave owner the same question, let's be realistic, he'd most likely tell you "pre-abolition". Now we all know that slavery was wrong and that the post-abolition period was a BETTER American society. Although some people will disagree. Don't you agree?
I've also lived in a European country for many, many years (Spain) and are fairly well-traveled (and open minded) and frankly do not base my opinions on nonesense.
Immigration is needed in every country at all levels and times. Without immigration a country turns into a a stale society capable of the best and worst (look at Nazi Germany).
So your nullyfing your own suggestion that it's better now than at any time in the past? Why must I be limited by you, when you're making a similar statement yourself? ???
Don't be an hypocrite:
In fact I'd say that socially speaking we're MUCH better off now than 60 years ago, and certainly much, much better off than 160 years ago. And I presume things will only get better.
Nazi Germany wasn't stale. Poor example IMO.
-
Thanks w8tlftr. It is a shame, on the other hand she will probably be senate majority leader in a few years. ;)
You're welcome.
I can definitely see Hillary becoming the Senate majority or minority leader.
-
So your nullyfing your own suggestion that it's better now than at any time in the past? Why must I be limited by you, when you're making a similar statement yourself? ???
Nope. I'm not nullifying anything. What I'm saying is that if you compare pre-abolishment vs post-abolishment America then it is no longer a subjective concept, it is a fact that post-abolishment America is a better society. Even if you are a racist and "think" otherwise. Now, if you compare the US now a the US of 5 months from now then, unless a major positive social change has taken place, then your opinion is as good as mine.
But I think you're talking about the UK, not the US. Are you British?
Nazi Germany wasn't stale. Poor example IMO.
No, I'd say otherwise. Nazi Germany is a prime example.
-
Nope. I'm not nullifying anything. What I'm saying is that if you compare pre-abolishment vs post-abolishment America then it is no longer a subjective concept, it is a fact that post-abolishment America is a better society. Even if you are a racist and "think" otherwise. Now, if you compare the US now a the US of 5 months from now then, unless a major positive social change has taken place, then your opinion is as good as mine.
But I think you're talking about the UK, not the US. Are you British?
No, I'd say otherwise. Nazi Germany is a prime example.
I'm talking years, decades.
You're going to have to explain your use of stale in regards to Nazi Germany. I may or not agree with you depending on the meaning.
-
Team Third Reich representing!
-
I'm talking years, decades.
You're going to have to explain your use of stale in regards to Nazi Germany. I may or not agree with you depending on the meaning.
Well, let's take 1950's Birmingham, Alabama. If you compare Birmingham's society back in the 50's with it's total segregationist policies vs today's Birmingham we can honestly say that, from a human point of view, Birmingham's society is a BETTER society nowadays because it is not fragmented and human rights are actually being observed. And whatever comes next will most likely be a better Alabama, because this time around we know what is wrong and what is right.
Also, remember, 99% of what I've said is my opinion, nothing else nothing more. However, and going back to the subject at hand, we all in the US, unless you're an Native American, are illegal aliens. That is if you observe the very same laws that many people insist on applying to the ones WE now deem legal or illegal.
-
[...]You're going to have to explain your use of stale in regards to Nazi Germany. I may or not agree with you depending on the meaning.
Well, what happened in Germany was not an isolated even by any stretch of the imagination, I'll say that to begin with. Europe hasn't always been a welcoming place until a couple of decades ago. I mean, look, what happened in Germany happened in Spain from the 1500 to the 1700 and in France a century or so later. What am I saying with all of this? To make things plain and simple, Europe has always been ruled by 2-3 things: The church, feudal system and as of lately people with money. Now, 100 years ago all they had was the church and the feudal systems sucking the blood out of the Europeans. The Church was doing "God's good work" by instilling an irrational hate for foreigners/non-Christians, especially jews (in fact, even nowadays, in some places, in Europe being called a "jew" is an insult). Fast forward to the 1920s and 30s: Marxism, fascism, etc. All movements that posed a challenge to the bipolar system of power: the church and the feudal system. What was the response to all of this? Well, a turn back to the way Europe "used to be". Romanticism 101. Due to all these movements European societies began to close the doors on anything that wasn't "country" and went back to self-adoring their origins. Now, we all know that what they were really hating is the semislavery conditions they had to endure on a daily basis, so eventually all that hate brewed through the decades (which resulted in two world wars and countless others) had to go somewhere and the victim was... well, the preferred victim in Europe: the Jews. In reality, it was more than the Jews, there were Gysies, communists, anarchysts, etc. Spain, for christsake! 40 years totally isollated because of the Generalísimo Franco. What did he do as soon as he overthrew the democratically elected republican president? Restore the church in positions of power (they had been totally isolated by the republicans) and restore the monarchy (the feudal system).
Where am I gettin with all of this? Well, it's not really the immigrants that are the problem (unless you're talking about the radical muslim types, which are human garbage and shouldn't be allowed anywhere but their own countries) it's our fear-mongering. Upper classes use the immigrants as a "you see what will happen to you if you do not participate?" type of response to an active political population. And this is where nazi Germany comes in, because they were the last of the Mohicans in trying to make create a Valhalla for "their people" (although, let's not forget, one Hitler's goals was to "cleanse" Europe) in which an irrational hate or dislike for whatever that was not "like them" was instilled in the very young. Now, see what happened to Germany between the time of the German Empire to the reunification period and you tell me whether German society is better off now or not.
I hope I got the point accross (although a historian would've killed me for turning 300 year-long events in 1-liners though).
-
Well, let's take 1950's Birmingham, Alabama. If you compare Birmingham's society back in the 50's with it's total segregationist policies vs today's Birmingham we can honestly say that, from a human point of view, Birmingham's society is a BETTER society nowadays because it is not fragmented and human rights are actually being observed. And whatever comes next will most likely be a better Alabama, because this time around we know what is wrong and what is right.
Also, remember, 99% of what I've said is my opinion, nothing else nothing more. However, and going back to the subject at hand, we all in the US, unless you're an Native American, are illegal aliens. That is if you observe the very same laws that many people insist on applying to the ones WE now deem legal or illegal.
My statements were entirely to do with my perspective on living in a few EU countries, not Birmingham, Alabama.
On the topic of Nazi Germany, we were looking at it from different angles. The angle you've just described I totally agree with.
-
My statements were entirely to do with my perspective on living in a few EU countries, not Birmingham, Alabama.
On the topic of Nazi Germany, we were looking at it from different angles. The angle you've just described I totally agree with.
Nordic, the Birmingham example was just that, an example... And I did say so in the comment.
On Nazi Germany we seem to agree on that we agree.
-
I agree that part of it is foreign policy but I also feel there is some deep hope from European leaders where they don't want the US to be a superpower with the kind of strength we had the last 50-60yrs. I don't believe the two ideas are separate actually. They probably prefer us to be closer to them on both an economic and military front. (I'm all for a change in US international policy that puts diplomacy 1st, 2nd and 3rd and military as a last resort)
-
Obama loses German hearts and minds ahead of Berlin visit
Yahoo News ^ | 18 Jun 2013 | Marc Young
Posted on Tuesday, June 18, 2013 10:29:19 AM by mandaladon
BERLIN—When Barack Obama last visited Berlin back in 2008, Constanze Fröhlich felt like she was part of history. “He was about to become the first black president—I wanted to support that,” the 35-year-old university researcher told Yahoo News. “It was really amazing so many people were there.” Back then, in a surprising outpouring of Teutonic affection for Obama, a euphoric crowd of 200,000 turned up to hear the Democratic presidential contender speak in the German capital. “People of the world: Look at Berlin, where a wall came down, a continent came together, and history proved that there is no challenge too great for a world that stands as one,” he told the rapturous masses. “This city, of all cities, knows the dream of freedom.” But five years later, Germany’s love affair with the U.S. president has gone cold. Obama can still expect Chancellor Angela Merkel to give him a grand reception on his official two-day visit. But his high-profile speech on Wednesday in front of the city’s Brandenburg Gate—almost exactly 50 years after John F. Kennedy’s historic “Ich bin ein Berliner” address—will be given to a vetted audience of only a few thousand. And it’s doubtful hundreds of thousands would have turned up to listen to Obama had it been open to the public anyway. Average Germans these days appear at best mildly disillusioned and at worst deeply angry with the man who promised hope and change. “I thought it was great that he became president. But there’s more distance now. He’s been consumed by daily politics,” said Fröhlich.
(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...