The president who made his country a global mockery

Dixon

May I add my own, "I also told you so" to the growing chorus.

Outward indications of weakness makes conflict more likely, not less, whether on a street-corner in Brixton or the international stage.

I hope Dinner jackets mob hold on to power long enough for us to see Obamnmie out and someone with a spine take up the reigns. If Iran undergoes any kind of "change" of leadership in the meantime, that will only mean the entire farce of the past decade of "diplomacy" will re-set, beginning again, and nothing of practical consequence will ever be done.

Michael

What bad stuff has happened then since he came to office?

What bad stuff? Just asking....

In the Wilderness in America

Melanie,
You've said it before and you've reiterated it here: the truth that Obama's appeasement is deadly for the world and for any chance at peace.

Obama's policy of "engagement" wherever he visits is rejected and thrown back at his face in utter contempt. Russia has done that and the mullahs in Iran have done it.

He and his ideological sychophants will never learn that appeasement has never worked. Where are our Churchill, Leo Amery, Harold Macmillan, Robert Boothby, and Ronald Cartland now to stop the appeasemnet insanity that these MPs did in 1940 to derail a deluded leader who also promised "peace in our time"?

Worried

@Michael: It's called, 'The Calm Before the Storm'. The last major storm, (9/11?) happened quite a long time after the prior event (1993 attack on WTC etc). That is not to say there will be another terrorist attack, but be assured, there is someone somewhere always trying to alter the path of history using means unorthodox and/or unexpected. The greatest threat is nuclear terrorism or an 'illogical' / 'irrational' nuclear war. Imagine if just one rogue weapon is detonated in/over a major Western city, (say, Birmingham, England or a mid sized US metropolis) - how many city dwellers elsewhere would remain put? Forget the casualties of the 'first strike', but the social upheaval would cause total economic and logistical meltdown and thrust much of the world into the stone age for quite a while. (All said, if the banks don't inject some cash into the economy soon, we may just manage that without any war or terror!) :P

dearieme

It would be a good deal easier to put pressure on Iran if that chump W hadn't overthrown the nasty thug who ran Iraq, who might have proved rather useful now.

Corin

What bad stuff has happened then since he came to office?

Nigerian jihad. Egyptian courts refuse justice to Coptic Christians (Arab invaders persecute original Egyptians), Muslim persecution of Christians in Pakistan, Indonesia etc. etc.: build-up of armaments in Gaza and West Bank, Lebanon etc.; siding with Argentina against us in the Falklands; Muslim army officer shoots fellow soldiers; CAIR shown to be legal non-entity and involved in terrorism; ACORN involved in vote-rigging; democrats refusing to stand in 2012 elections....and that's just off the top of my head!

d1carter

What a mistake this county made! This is price to pay for electing a POTUS on the basis of making history. Hope and Change made it as far as the inauguration. Gloom and despair have replaced them.

Frank P

Michael

"What bad stuff? Just asking...."

The thin end of the wedge of socialism stuffed up the fundament of Uncle Sam; do you not remember Nye Bevan's modus operandi? Read about his deal with the Consultants. We've had 60 years of it - being screwed every which way. Free at the point of delivery, Michael. That's what all the girls say, isn't it? Tax; National Insurance extracted from your paypacket; consumer prices reflecting National Insurance employer contributions; tax; more tax; even more tax! The Yanks have had just one year of burgeoning modified Marxism and are beginning to feel the pain already. When they have a an underclass of idlers and malingerers three generations thick, perhaps they will understand where they have gone wrong.

You are obviously one of the three wise monkeys Michael.

ahem

Michael: If you're too dim to read enough to apprehend what is going on around you, then tough shit. Play your game elsewhere.

John Birch

Actually, the evidence from outside of the US is that America's image has improved greatly under Obama. The one area where it hasn't improved is in parts of the so-called Muslim world, particularly in places like Turkey and Pakistan. The latter might be related to the vast expansion of drone attacks since Obama took office. His administration has carried out more attacks since he took office than George Bush's administration did over the previous 6 years. I assume Melanie opposes this expansion of drone attacks. She apparently also opposes the sending of thousands of additional American troops to Afghanistan.
http://pewresearch.org/pubs/1512/restoring-americas-reputation-globally-gains-may-be-fragile

tiki

Love is for private people. A LEADER should be wise, respected and (yes) feared. Obama is neither. The world is at very dangerous crossroads, because of this man's incompetence, weakness and plain stupidity.

Roy

Obama is a product of, and a rally caller for the so-called black under privileged of many US cities. He knows nothing else but the in-fighting techniques of the lowly street organiser. Of the stepping stone system rising to district organiser and first steps to local and state politics. He is completely out of his depth dealing in world affairs. His home base support will always be there, they are coloured and so is he. The details of his political beliefs will never matter to his lowly ghetto base. They will never know the corners he has cut or the friends he has garnered in his clime to stardom. Now he has made it to the top job the play acting becomes harder. He must convince a more worldly group to his skill and competence. Not just the semi - thugs of the street, or the fellow rising stars of his near Marxist organs, but a never ending list of sophisticated, cunning, and practiced political figures. This is what the world is made of, and more than a match for President Obama and his team of advisers.

elixelx

Dearieme, Dearieme!
You wrote: "It would be a good deal easier to put pressure on Iran if that chump W hadn't overthrown the nasty thug who ran Iraq, who might have proved rather useful now...."
So, you think that Barry-boy would have coped BETTER with TWO genocidal maniacs when he's already proved he can't handle ONE?
Asked to choose between the Devil and the deep blue sea, you believe that "BOTH" is the correct response?
Do you really see A'jad and Saddam going back to vexing each other while they have Barry-boy's tail to pull?
Finally, have you asked the 62% of the Iraqis who voted last Sunday whether they would rather have an incipient Democratic country, rather than a homicidal maniac constantly at war with his neighbours.
Your BDS is still eating you alive and still making you say silly things, Dearieme!
Illogic, thy name is Dearieme!

Graeme Thompson

dearieme
March 9th, 2010 11:50pm

Dearieme indeed. That 'nasty thug' sent his air force to Iran in '93 and (if memory serves right) '03. He was 'husbanding his resources' as an American commander so eloquently put it. You really think he would have allied with us against Iran? It's like saying Islamists would ally with British democracy against the likes of George Galloway.

As it is, our overriding priority in going into Iraq was to protect our security which required a permanent 'forward base' there with or without Iraqi consent. Unfortunately we were 'too nice'. Now if things blow up over Iran Iraq will still in all probability be an Iranian ally. But then with the America's media President in the White House, fat chance any effective action would be taken. Its all downhill from here, its just about a rearguard action to save souls now, I believe.

Graeme

Barack Obama has been socially enhanced most of his life. He was helped into office by a left-leaning television industry, which through non-partizanship away during the November 2008. He was a member of the left-wing New Party based in Chicago up until at least 1996; a party, which if it moved a step further to the left would be communist. All this was glossed over during the election campaign

blue_&_white_avenger

Dear John Birch, if I may perhaps speak on Melanie's behalf (!) " I assume Melanie opposes this expansion of drone attacks. She apparently also opposes the sending of thousands of additional American troops to Afghanistan. "
I suspect she doesn't - but I'm sure that anyone with a dram of common sense was appalled at the announcement that the Obama Admin, made that they'd be out of Afghanistan by 2011. That's real genius - all the Taliban needs to do is sit tight until Obama heads home.
However, as we say in Hebrew, Obama may be heading home himself even before then.

Rob-NY

Remember the celebrations in the UK when this man was elected. Be careful what you wish for in Europe. You are on your own and you deserve to be...good luck.

Dixon

Whats John Birch got against Drones. They are magnificent. To think of some blokes in an office in Nevada following a target on the other side of the world for hours or days without that person knowing. Choosing the ideal time and place to blow them away with a thunderbolt out of the heavens! This is God-like power over our adversaries. Its also only just beginning. Hundreds of both aerial and terrestrial automata of war are now under development. Thousands are already deployed and that will eventually be tens of thousands, possibly hundreds of thousands. Some are small enough to land in the palm of your hand. Others, like Global Hawk or the new Israeli UAV bomber are as large as small airliners. The more we have of them, the fewer of our people die in action. The easier it is to reach out to our enemies. The harder it becomes for them to fight back.

On another front, drones are probably the future of domestic surveillance and policing.

John Birch

Dixon: I don't have anything against drones. I was merely pointing out that Obama has been much tougher than the Bush administration. And despite what you say, it's not just our enemies who are blown up by them.

Dixon

"John Birch
March 10th, 2010 7:23pm
Dixon: I don't have anything against drones. I was merely pointing out that Obama has been much tougher than the Bush administration. And despite what you say, it's not just our enemies who are blown up by them."

No, he hasnt been tougher, theres been an increase in strikes during his tenure, and he's been two-faced about it ( promising doves and delivering thunderbolts ) theres a big difference there.

And whoever they kill, if they are people in that part of the world, then yes, they ARE our enemies.

wearenotblind

There are 2 possibilities here with regards to Obama. The first is that he really thought that the only problem with Iran was that Bush had frightened the poor lambs otherwise they would never try to possess nuclear weapons. It is after all unislamic according to one of the spokemen for the religion of peace. And thank heaven we do not have to say spokesperson, as we know all the real experts are Islamic men.
The second possibility is that Obama knew all along that making nice would not result in one bit of concessions from the mullahs, but only said so to assuage some of his supporters and to show he had a policy, any policy, on Iranian nukes . After all, if he is the smartest man ever to be president, how could he not know the mullahs would not give up the goal of nukes, something that was obvious to many people of lesser intelligence. I personally opt for #2 in regards to Obama. I am sure he hoped mightily that Iran would have nukes before he was inaugerated so that he could blame it all on Bush. But fear not, he will blame it on Bush whenever they get the nukes.

He has alienated Britain, France, Israel, and eastern Europe. He didn't have the courage to speak out on China vis a vis human rights. He has tried to cosy up to Chavez. In Iran, as demonstrators were being murdered, he said nothing. He has proven that during his presidency it is far safer to be an enemy of the US than a friend. His next project is to ruin the American economy with an unaffordable healthcare bill. Having ruined the reputation of the US in the rest of the world, for him ruining the economy should be easy pickings. Yes he can.

David ben Duji

Dixon

So all Afghanis are 'our enemies' then? Along with all 'in that part of the world'?
Your mask has slipped, mate.
Even Ghengis Khan was only content to order the destruction of the canals and reservoirs that kept Bactria a peaceful Buddhist Khanate; and transformed it into grim, Islamic Afghanistan.
Keep cheering all innocentcivilian deaths and mutilations! Just don't wonder why the war goes on and on and claims more young British, American and allied lives!

steve bronfman

Michael
March 9th, 2010 11:14pm

What bad stuff has happened then since he came to office?

What bad stuff? Just asking....

-Remember those protests in Iran Michael? The one in which the pro-democracy protesters were beaten, raped, killed and put on trial ny the Iranian regime while Obama said nothing until he declared he was "still ready to meet with Iran's regime".

or

How about when Israel found hundreds of Tons of weapons from Iran bound for Hezballah?
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/33615335/ns/world_news-mideastn_africa/ Did Obama do anything? Did he criticise Iran for breaking UN resolutions? No. He is 0% hot air.

Gixxerboy

Dixon - "And whoever they kill, if they are people in that part of the world, then yes, they ARE our enemies."

You disgust me.

Major Plonquer

There is no doubt in my mind that Barrack Ocarter is an utter failure. But he's a Democrat. What did you expect?

He's placed America in exactly the same situation as Jimmy Carthorse did in 1979. It took Ronald Raygun to save America back then. But who is strong enough to lead America through this disgrace and rebuild the greatest empire Hollywood has ever seen? My money is on Kafir Sutherland.

If Ronald Raygun was alive today he'd be turning in his grave.

Major Plonquer

I agree wholeheartedly with John Birch. The use of 'drones' in modern warfare is a moral disgrace - particularly when we have so many unemployed.