US/UK foreign policy.

[Cerberus]

On a BBC current affairs programme Obama has just said 'Britain and the US want to make the world a safer place.' Fuck me, you couldn't make it up - everywhere they go they cause problems which in turn causes enmity against us. Have these two fools no sense of perception!! Also I wish he'd get his upper set fixed so he doesn't accentuate his s's!

 

[barbos]

On a BBC current affairs programme Obama has just said 'Britain and the US want to make the world a safer place.' Fuck me, you couldn't make it up - everywhere they go they cause problems which in turn causes enmity against us. Have these two fools no sense of perception!! Also I wish he'd get his upper set fixed so he doesn't accentuate his s's!

To be fair he did not say "Britain and the US make the world a safer place". So technically there is no contradiction.

 

[Will Wiley]

On a BBC current affairs programme Obama has just said 'Britain and the US want to make the world a safer place.'

However the over riding goal of American foreign policy is not to make the world a safer place. The over riding goal is to prevent the emergence of a rival. It's possible that because Obama is a strong believer in American exceptionalism he believes that American hegemony makes the world a safer place. Though as you oint out the evidence doesn't seem to bear that out.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoconservatism

In foreign policy, the neoconservatives' main concern is to prevent the development of a new rival. Defense Planning Guidance, a document prepared during 1992 by Under Secretary for Defense for Policy Paul Wolfowitz, is regarded by Distinguished Professor of the Humanities John McGowan at the University of North Carolina as the "quintessential statement of neoconservative thought". The report says:[76]

"Our first objective is to prevent the re-emergence of a new rival, either on the territory of the former Soviet Union or elsewhere, that poses a threat on the order of that posed formerly by the Soviet Union. This is a dominant consideration underlying the new regional defense strategy and requires that we endeavor to prevent any hostile power from dominating a region whose resources would, under consolidated control, be sufficient to generate global power."

The neo conservatives have no intention of making peace with potential rivals in Russia or elsewhere.

If you believe in American exceptionalism then you believe that only America can lead the world. No one else can be trusted.
Even atheists believe god created America to do this job

 

[boneyard bill]

Of course, all of this is utter bullshit. In the first place, Obama doesn't even run US foreign policy and those who do certainly don't want to make the world a safer place. US foreign policy is run by the mafia. I don't the Mafia as in the well-known crime families, although they have their role to play, but by a larger mafia. The "deep state" of powerful influences including the MIC, the Wall Street bankers, various big businesses (especially Big Pharma and agribusiness) and the Saudi Arabian and Zionist lobbies.

America is run by criminal gangs. That's why it doesn't matter who we elect to the White House, and it doesn't matter what Obama says.


Yes, but all that means is there are powerful interests within these criminal gangs that stand to benefit mightily from the Iran deal. It has nothing to do with promoting peace or sensible foreign policy. Sometimes these criminal gangs are not on the same page, but most of the time they are.

 

[nightwyrm]

He's speaking on international TV....what else is he suppose to say?

That he wants "to crush his enemies, to see them driven before him, and to hear the lamentations of their women"?....which would probably be more accurate, but not something you say on international television.

 

[untermensche]

...America is run by criminal gangs. That's why it doesn't matter who we elect to the White House, and it doesn't matter what Obama says...

In terms of foreign policy this is true.

But in terms of domestic policy there is a definite difference between Republicans and Democrats.

We look at history.

Economy wrecked by Reagan and Bush I, then economy recovers under Clinton, then it is wrecked again by Bush the lesser and now it is improving under Obama.

But some Americans still buy the absurd rhetoric from the right about knowing how to run an economy. What they know is how to let their friends have a party as the economy is destroyed.

 

[whichphilosophy]

On a BBC current affairs programme Obama has just said 'Britain and the US want to make the world a safer place.' Fuck me, you couldn't make it up - everywhere they go they cause problems which in turn causes enmity against us. Have these two fools no sense of perception!! Also I wish he'd get his upper set fixed so he doesn't accentuate his s's!

To be fair he did not say "Britain and the US make the world a safer place". So technically there is no contradiction.

There is a contradiction between the stated intent and the result of their actions so far.

 

[boneyard bill]

...America is run by criminal gangs. That's why it doesn't matter who we elect to the White House, and it doesn't matter what Obama says...

In terms of foreign policy this is true.

But in terms of domestic policy there is a definite difference between Republicans and Democrats.

We look at history.

Economy wrecked by Reagan and Bush I, then economy recovers under Clinton, then it is wrecked again by Bush the lesser and now it is improving under Obama.

But some Americans still buy the absurd rhetoric from the right about knowing how to run an economy. What they know is how to let their friends have a party as the economy is destroyed.

That's pretty much nonsense. The economy was wrecked under Carter and Reagan fixed it. The downturn under Bush I was mild and the recession was over by the time Clinton left office. Clinton left with a recession under way. Bush then wrecked the economy because he needed a bubble to boost his re-election because of his stupidity in Iraq. That bubble burst, Obama inherited the mess and has done nothing to get us out of it.

 

[Cerberus]

There would appear to be two controlling influences which have been overlooked in the responses to this thread so far - the Bilderburgers and the arms industry. boneyardbill has just said above that Obama has done nothing to get us out of it (the mess): well not only that, but he seems hell-bent on bankrupting the US. Indeed, after watching Bitter Lake on Afghanistan I'm surprised it isn't bankrupt already! As an aside, yesterday I heard a political commentator over here mention that your deficit is $18tr . . . and counting.

 

[untermensche]

In terms of foreign policy this is true.

But in terms of domestic policy there is a definite difference between Republicans and Democrats.

We look at history.

Economy wrecked by Reagan and Bush I, then economy recovers under Clinton, then it is wrecked again by Bush the lesser and now it is improving under Obama.

But some Americans still buy the absurd rhetoric from the right about knowing how to run an economy. What they know is how to let their friends have a party as the economy is destroyed.

That's pretty much nonsense. The economy was wrecked under Carter and Reagan fixed it. The downturn under Bush I was mild and the recession was over by the time Clinton left office. Clinton left with a recession under way. Bush then wrecked the economy because he needed a bubble to boost his re-election because of his stupidity in Iraq. That bubble burst, Obama inherited the mess and has done nothing to get us out of it.

Reagan fixed it?

Are you one of the 1%?

Wages stagnated, the middle class declined, benefits for working people declined, unions were attacked and destroyed.

And of course a start to a bunch of wars, in the case of Reagan they were in South America.

And Obama saved the economy that was heading down hill rapidly after a Republican president.

People should know, voting for a Republican president will most likely mean a downturn in the economy and the starting of wars. That has been the history since 1980.

 

[boneyard bill]

That's pretty much nonsense. The economy was wrecked under Carter and Reagan fixed it. The downturn under Bush I was mild and the recession was over by the time Clinton left office. Clinton left with a recession under way. Bush then wrecked the economy because he needed a bubble to boost his re-election because of his stupidity in Iraq. That bubble burst, Obama inherited the mess and has done nothing to get us out of it.

Reagan fixed it?

Are you one of the 1%?

Wages stagnated, the middle class declined, benefits for working people declined, unions were attacked and destroyed.

And of course a start to a bunch of wars, in the case of Reagan they were in South America.

And Obama saved the economy that was heading down hill rapidly after a Republican president.

People should know, voting for a Republican president will most likely mean a downturn in the economy and the starting of wars. That has been the history since 1980.

By 1984 the economy was growing at a 7.5% clip. Reagan won re-election by a landslide. He won 49 states. Unemployment was low and declining.

The Contra thing was probably a bad idea, but nothing compared to Vietnam or the Gulf War or the Kosovo War or the Iraq War. Indeed, Obama has us far more engaged in proxy wars in Syria, Yemen, Somalia, Pakistan, and Libya than Reagan ever got into in Central America. Meanwhile, Reagan ended the Cold War and reached arms control agreements with the Soviet Union while Obama, Bush II, and Clinton have done nothing but provoke Russia. With the Ukraine mess, we're actually threatening the Russian border which is extremely dangerous when you realize that Russia has more nukes than we do.

Obama rescued the big Wall Street banks that needed to fail. All he has done is to kick the can down the road and make it worse. Obama supported TARP and may have played the crucial role in enabling to pass. Meanwhile, after he took office, the Fed poured trillions into the big banks all over the world and Obama tacitly approved of all of this.

I don't want to be defending everything Reagan did, but he was a whole lot better that the jokers we have now, and most of the complaints about Reagan that are raised by the left are exactly where Reagan was right. The left rarely raises criticisms of the things Reagan did where he was wrong.

 

[untermensche]

Reagan fixed it?

Are you one of the 1%?

Wages stagnated, the middle class declined, benefits for working people declined, unions were attacked and destroyed.

And of course a start to a bunch of wars, in the case of Reagan they were in South America.

And Obama saved the economy that was heading down hill rapidly after a Republican president.

People should know, voting for a Republican president will most likely mean a downturn in the economy and the starting of wars. That has been the history since 1980.

By 1984 the economy was growing at a 7.5% clip. Reagan won re-election by a landslide. He won 49 states. Unemployment was low and declining.

The Contra thing was probably a bad idea, but nothing compared to Vietnam or the Gulf War or the Kosovo War or the Iraq War. Indeed, Obama has us far more engaged in proxy wars in Syria, Yemen, Somalia, Pakistan, and Libya than Reagan ever got into in Central America. Meanwhile, Reagan ended the Cold War and reached arms control agreements with the Soviet Union while Obama, Bush II, and Clinton have done nothing but provoke Russia. With the Ukraine mess, we're actually threatening the Russian border which is extremely dangerous when you realize that Russia has more nukes than we do.

Obama rescued the big Wall Street banks that needed to fail. All he has done is to kick the can down the road and make it worse. Obama supported TARP and may have played the crucial role in enabling to pass. Meanwhile, after he took office, the Fed poured trillions into the big banks all over the world and Obama tacitly approved of all of this.

I don't want to be defending everything Reagan did, but he was a whole lot better that the jokers we have now, and most of the complaints about Reagan that are raised by the left are exactly where Reagan was right. The left rarely raises criticisms of the things Reagan did where he was wrong.

Lets just look at one of your claims.

You say:

Unemployment was low and declining.

Here are US employment rates.





What I see is unemployment rates rising for four years then declining over the next 4 years to where they were when he took office. Nothing spectacular, nothing noteworthy, nothing of any great value in the Reagan years. All we have is mythology and delusions.

And your analysis of the deliberate brutality in South America is shameful.

But there is something noteworthy that happened when Reagan took office and we can see it in this graph.

 

[boneyard bill]

By 1984 the economy was growing at a 7.5% clip. Reagan won re-election by a landslide. He won 49 states. Unemployment was low and declining.

The Contra thing was probably a bad idea, but nothing compared to Vietnam or the Gulf War or the Kosovo War or the Iraq War. Indeed, Obama has us far more engaged in proxy wars in Syria, Yemen, Somalia, Pakistan, and Libya than Reagan ever got into in Central America. Meanwhile, Reagan ended the Cold War and reached arms control agreements with the Soviet Union while Obama, Bush II, and Clinton have done nothing but provoke Russia. With the Ukraine mess, we're actually threatening the Russian border which is extremely dangerous when you realize that Russia has more nukes than we do.

Obama rescued the big Wall Street banks that needed to fail. All he has done is to kick the can down the road and make it worse. Obama supported TARP and may have played the crucial role in enabling to pass. Meanwhile, after he took office, the Fed poured trillions into the big banks all over the world and Obama tacitly approved of all of this.

I don't want to be defending everything Reagan did, but he was a whole lot better that the jokers we have now, and most of the complaints about Reagan that are raised by the left are exactly where Reagan was right. The left rarely raises criticisms of the things Reagan did where he was wrong.

Lets just look at one of your claims.

You say:

Unemployment was low and declining.

Here are US employment rates.

View attachment 3542

View attachment 3543

What I see is unemployment rates rising for four years then declining over the next 4 years to where they were when he took office. Nothing spectacular, nothing noteworthy, nothing of any great value in the Reagan years. All we have is mythology and delusions.

And your analysis of the deliberate brutality in South America is shameful.

But there is something noteworthy that happened when Reagan took office and we can see it in this graph.

View attachment 3544

I don't see your point. Yes, unemployment was high when Reagan took office but it declined throughout his term according to your own chart. Maybe it continued to rise in his first year, depending on how you read the chart, but that would be an economy inherited from Carter.

Meanwhile you have made no response to my points on foreign policy in which, let's face it, Reagan was far more peaceful than any of successors and way, way less interventionist than Obama.

 

[untermensche]

I don't see your point. Yes, unemployment was high when Reagan took office but it declined throughout his term according to your own chart. Maybe it continued to rise in his first year, depending on how you read the chart, but that would be an economy inherited from Carter.

Meanwhile you have made no response to my points on foreign policy in which, let's face it, Reagan was far more peaceful than any of successors and way, way less interventionist than Obama.

Reagan was a moron who when he came into office claimed marijuana was the most dangerous drug known and thus we have the beginning of this monstrosity called the drug war.

He couldn't think his way out of a wet napkin. He was a figure head for the exact same radicals that appeared again with another complete moron, GW.

And the purpose of the charts was to show that nothing spectacular in terms of the economy ever happened due to policies initiated by the radicals Reagan was surrounded by.

But one thing did begin with these policies and that is why they are worshiped. A huge transfer of wealth from working people to the rich began under Reagan. And the rich spent a lot of this money on so-called "think tanks" and a whole industry worshiping this moron called Reagan began.

All one has to do is look at other modern day morons like Marco Rubio to see the effects.

And as far as Reagan and violence you are deluded. The activities in South and Central America were as deadly and immoral as anything being done in the Middle East now. The US used mercenaries instead of it's own troops. That is the only difference.

 

[whichphilosophy]

I don't see your point. Yes, unemployment was high when Reagan took office but it declined throughout his term according to your own chart. Maybe it continued to rise in his first year, depending on how you read the chart, but that would be an economy inherited from Carter.

Meanwhile you have made no response to my points on foreign policy in which, let's face it, Reagan was far more peaceful than any of successors and way, way less interventionist than Obama.

Reagan was a moron who when he came into office claimed marijuana was the most dangerous drug known and thus we have the beginning of this monstrosity called the drug war.

He couldn't think his way out of a wet napkin. He was a figure head for the exact same radicals that appeared again with another complete moron, GW.

And the purpose of the charts was to show that nothing spectacular in terms of the economy ever happened due to policies initiated by the radicals Reagan was surrounded by.

But one thing did begin with these policies and that is why they are worshiped. A huge transfer of wealth from working people to the rich began under Reagan. And the rich spent a lot of this money on so-called "think tanks" and a whole industry worshiping this moron called Reagan began.

All one has to do is look at other modern day morons like Marco Rubio to see the effects.

And as far as Reagan and violence you are deluded. The activities in South and Central America were as deadly and immoral as anything being done in the Middle East now. The US used mercenaries instead of it's own troops. That is the only difference.

The US uses mercenaries now (aka private contractors).

 

[Sarpedon]

When you consider half (at least) of the problems the USA is struggling with are leftovers from the British Empire, UK citizens are in no position to be America-bashing.

Iraq/Iran, Israel/Palestine, India/Pakistan, Afganistan, etc etc.

 

[boneyard bill]

I don't see your point. Yes, unemployment was high when Reagan took office but it declined throughout his term according to your own chart. Maybe it continued to rise in his first year, depending on how you read the chart, but that would be an economy inherited from Carter.

Meanwhile you have made no response to my points on foreign policy in which, let's face it, Reagan was far more peaceful than any of successors and way, way less interventionist than Obama.

Reagan was a moron who when he came into office claimed marijuana was the most dangerous drug known and thus we have the beginning of this monstrosity called the drug war.

He couldn't think his way out of a wet napkin. He was a figure head for the exact same radicals that appeared again with another complete moron, GW.

And the purpose of the charts was to show that nothing spectacular in terms of the economy ever happened due to policies initiated by the radicals Reagan was surrounded by.

But one thing did begin with these policies and that is why they are worshiped. A huge transfer of wealth from working people to the rich began under Reagan. And the rich spent a lot of this money on so-called "think tanks" and a whole industry worshiping this moron called Reagan began.

All one has to do is look at other modern day morons like Marco Rubio to see the effects.

And as far as Reagan and violence you are deluded. The activities in South and Central America were as deadly and immoral as anything being done in the Middle East now. The US used mercenaries instead of it's own troops. That is the only difference.

This post is too incoherent to respond to.

 

[Togo]

When you consider half (at least) of the problems the USA is struggling with are leftovers from the British Empire, UK citizens are in no position to be America-bashing.

Iraq/Iran, Israel/Palestine, India/Pakistan, Afganistan, etc etc.

But the other half aren't. And you get similar situations in the regions where the US specifically forbade UK intervention, such as South and Central America. Which suggests that the British aren't responsible at all. Certainly Iraq and Iran are problems, but we didn't force the US to go to war with first one and then the other, nor was decades of hostility to Iran our idea. And letting the Taliban control Afganistan was strictly a US project. India/Pakistan you have more of a point.

 

[untermensche]

Reagan was a moron who when he came into office claimed marijuana was the most dangerous drug known and thus we have the beginning of this monstrosity called the drug war.

He couldn't think his way out of a wet napkin. He was a figure head for the exact same radicals that appeared again with another complete moron, GW.

And the purpose of the charts was to show that nothing spectacular in terms of the economy ever happened due to policies initiated by the radicals Reagan was surrounded by.

But one thing did begin with these policies and that is why they are worshiped. A huge transfer of wealth from working people to the rich began under Reagan. And the rich spent a lot of this money on so-called "think tanks" and a whole industry worshiping this moron called Reagan began.

All one has to do is look at other modern day morons like Marco Rubio to see the effects.

And as far as Reagan and violence you are deluded. The activities in South and Central America were as deadly and immoral as anything being done in the Middle East now. The US used mercenaries instead of it's own troops. That is the only difference.

This post is too incoherent to respond to.

Cognitive dissonance.

It is as plain as language can be.

 

[boneyard bill]

When you consider half (at least) of the problems the USA is struggling with are leftovers from the British Empire, UK citizens are in no position to be America-bashing.

Iraq/Iran, Israel/Palestine, India/Pakistan, Afganistan, etc etc.

But the other half aren't. And you get similar situations in the regions where the US specifically forbade UK intervention, such as South and Central America. Which suggests that the British aren't responsible at all. Certainly Iraq and Iran are problems, but we didn't force the US to go to war with first one and then the other, nor was decades of hostility to Iran our idea. And letting the Taliban control Afganistan was strictly a US project. India/Pakistan you have more of a point.

I've got to side with the Brit's here. Their biggest mistakes since unloading their empire has been when they followed the US lead. We weren't forced to move in where the British left.