Journal Timex's Journal: Obama bows to Saudi king 32
Obama, Obama, Obama... When will you learn?
The Media have put out photos and film clips showing Obama bowing in deference to Saudi King Abdullah on Wednesday.
Sigh.
For someone that really wants me to believe that he's the president, he's doing a piss-poor job of showing that he is what he claims to be.
NO president of the United States ever bows to any head of state. It is as rude as spitting in the Queen's face. It just isn't done.
Since when is being polite so wrong ... (Score:2)
Next you'll be saying he shouldn't shake hands, because that connotes "between equals", and the US president should be above all that ...
Or that the Queen of England was wrong to hug Michelle, because that too was wrong ... or that Michelle shouldn't have reciprocated, because after all, you're INDEPENDEN!
Why so nit-picky? Obama is big enough to think it doesn't make him look so weak in anyone's eyes.
Look, I know you don't like that he's president, and as far as you're concerned, he'll never be your
Re: (Score:2)
There's going to be a run on the dollar one way or another ... it can be a semi-controlled run, where the dollar gradually floats down in worth and the US, its' citizens, and the rest of the world has time to adapt ... or it can be really, REALLY fast, and throw the world into another depression.
By comparison, bowing a bit is no big deal in the grand scheme of things ...
It's true that Obama has been a disappointment - there has been NO attempt to punish those at the heart of the economic collapse (that
I have to tell ya (Score:1)
If you really didn't want Obama to be president, you all would have put up a better candidate in opposition. Somebody who doesn't "bow"(more like bend) to Wall Street would have been really nice.
Re: (Score:2)
The only people that came close to exciting me in this election cycle never stood a chance, because unless something Bad happens, it's always going to be a Republican vs Democrat race. Any other party will be "also ran" at best.
The bigger issue is that anyone that could have been a better option than the ones that ran didn't want to run at all, so they didn't.
I didn't vote for Obama this cycle, so it's not my fault that he's where he is.
Re: (Score:1)
...it's always going to be a Republican vs Democrat race.
That would indicate there is a much deeper, more basic problem that we need to address.
Re: (Score:2)
That would indicate there is a much deeper, more basic problem that we need to address.
But, how do we address it? All nations of the world have problems similar to our own, even though they have different political systems. We are the lone superpower, who's example should we follow? There has never been a nation in the position we are in now.
The two party system is the devil we know, why should we trade it for the devil we don't?
P.S. I say this as a consistent third party voter.
Re: (Score:1)
But, how do we address it?
Long term therapy. And it's time to treat this as a psychological problem, not a political one. And I've discovered that we shouldn't always follow the example of others. Otherwise you will end up following that devil right into the abyss. We're supposed to do what we ourselves know is right, not what others dictate to us. So, one step might be to understand that we don't always need something to follow. And that not all things need a purpose.
Re: (Score:2)
There has never been a nation in the position we are in now.
Rome, 350 AD, was in a similar position politically.
Re: (Score:2)
Rome is probably the closest example in history; though, I would put us a little earlier (maybe 150-200 AD).
But, the real game changer, what sets us apart from the Romans, is our huge stockpile of nuclear weapons, and similar stockpiles in a handful of other countries. That fact alone sets us apart from any other nation in history.
Re: (Score:2)
I doubt it. If we didn't nuke Mecca over 9-11, there ain't nothing that will be a big enough motivator to actually use those weapons.
Everybody's too scared about what would happen if those weapons were used in nuclear warfare a 3rd or 7th time (or someplace in between, depending on which alternative history you're into believing this week).
Besides, the majority of those weapons either belong to countries that don't have delivery tech sufficient for them to be a threat (though N. Korea is trying hard), or we
Re: (Score:2)
I doubt it. If we didn't nuke Mecca over 9-11, there ain't nothing that will be a big enough motivator to actually use those weapons.
It's not about actually using them. But their existence, both in the US and abroad, must be factored into every foriegn policy decision. Their mere existence changes how we fight wars (Viet Nam, Korea), even when we don't use them.
It changes everything so drastically, much like the invention of the stirrup or wheel, that it is difficult to find analogous historical situations.
Everybody's too scared about what would happen if those weapons were used in nuclear warfare a 3rd or 7th time (or someplace in between, depending on which alternative history you're into believing this week).
I'm curious, when were the 3rd-6th nukes used in these "alternative" histories? I don't think I've ever heard of that.
What I fear more is internal collapse due to overreaching our boundaries of how much human beings can reasonably manage.
Oh, I don't thi
Re: (Score:2)
It's not about actually using them. But their existence, both in the US and abroad, must be factored into every foriegn policy decision. Their mere existence changes how we fight wars (Viet Nam, Korea), even when we don't use them.
Which is sad, because war would be much more horrific (and thus, something much more to be avoided) and much shorter (and thus, much LESS destructive) with them.
It changes everything so drastically, much like the invention of the stirrup or wheel, that it
Re: (Score:2)
Which is sad, because war would be much more horrific (and thus, something much more to be avoided) and much shorter (and thus, much LESS destructive) with them.
Well, no they wouldn't. That's the whole point of MAD. Wars would be much more destructive, as in wiping out entire continents, if we actually used nukes.
But, even if we don't use them, it does eliminate the possibility of full-scale conventional warfare between the major nuclear powers. The wars we did see in the last half of the twentieth century were smaller, regional ones. The reason we never saw a USA/USSR WWIII, is because we had nukes.
Except, of course, that *every* technological advance in warfare has done that. The reason we abandoned castles was the invention of the cannon that could punch through their thick walls, for instance.
To a degree, they do. But there have been only a few technological
Re: (Score:2)
Well, no they wouldn't. That's the whole point of MAD. Wars would be much more destructive, as in wiping out entire continents, if we actually used nukes.
Now that depends on how you used it. Used against a country that has no nukes of it's own and is controlled by a centralized dictatorship, one small nuke (like the Tripoli example) can indeed wipe out a country's entire will to fight back (and their government) with a single stroke. Though I'd want to do something Reagan forgot- a phone call to
Re: (Score:2)
Used against a country that has no nukes of it's own and is controlled by a centralized dictatorship, one small nuke (like the Tripoli example) can indeed wipe out a country's entire will to fight back (and their government) with a single stroke.
I can't argue with that. Nuclear weapons, with their terrible destructive efficiency, would eliminate a country's will to fight. But, during the Cold War, we would have had to make very sure that the country we were bombing wasn't a Russian ally. That's what was so tricky. It's also why we haven't used a nuclear bomb since WWII.
Yes, but arguably those "smaller regional wars" went on far longer than say, a single exchange of missiles between Washington and Moscow would have. WWIII with nukes would have been over in about 20-30 minutes, not the years we saw with Korea, Vietnam, or Iraq.
No doubt those wars were longer than they had to be. But, speaking in terms of total number of lives lost, a nuclear exchange between the USA and USSR would have been far worse. You'
Re: (Score:2)
No doubt those wars were longer than they had to be. But, speaking in terms of total number of lives lost, a nuclear exchange between the USA and USSR would have been far worse. You're talking about killing a significant portion of the people in the world. Sure, it would have been over quicker, but at a far higher cost.
When doing evil, it's always best that it is done QUICKLY. And I disagree- we're talking about LESS than 1/6th the world's population even today between Russia and the United States
Re: (Score:2)
And I disagree- we're talking about LESS than 1/6th the world's population even today between Russia and the United States.
Well, if we're talking about an all-out nuclear exchange between the US and USSR, a billion people immediately dead doesn't sound too far off the mark. Of course, that number increases when you take into account fallout, the ensuing conventional war, and lack of infrastructure caused by the blasts. But, to be conservative, let's just say a billion people would have died from that nuclear exchange.
In the Korean War, a high estimate for number of casualties is 1.7 million. Vietnam had, let's say, 10 million c
Re: (Score:2)
Now, why is the billion people dead from a nuclear exchange better than the 227 million dead from the Cold War? If 1/6 of the world's population isn't so bad, why is a smaller number worse?
There was a couple of good Star Trek episodes on exactly that topic. It isn't the number of casualties that does the long term damage in a war- it's the length of the war itself. A good war should be so horrific that it is EXTREMELY rare. And like all evil, 'tis better if it were done quickly, like ripping off
Re: (Score:2)
And like all evil, 'tis better if it were done quickly, like ripping off a scab.
Better for who? Certainly not the billion dead people, nor the remaining inhabitants of a nuclear wasteland.
Which is exactly my point on centralization- no leaders, no orders. No orders, no retaliation launch.
Fortunately, it doesn't really work that way.
In the early days, before submarine based missiles, we had a policy known as "launch on warning". If we detected a Soviet missile launch, we wouldn't wait for the missiles to hit before we made our second strike. Our missiles would pass each other in the air. But, the advent of submarine based missiles shortened the time between detection and explosion so m
Re: (Score:1)
Even that has not caused any real change in peoples' behavior. They are still motivated by fear and greed. The bomb and our instant communications are unique to our times, but overall we are the same monkey that we have been over the last 5 or 10 thousand years. Politics has not changed one whit. And our nature has changed even less. I'm left wondering why nobody is interested in getting to the root of the problem [whale.to](pdf) all by myself :-(
No bowing? (Score:1)
I'm curious what you base this assertion on. A quick bow is a gesture of greeting and parting. My understanding was it was more common in Eastern Asia, so Obama's bow may have been culturally misplaced, but otherwise I fail to see what the issue is.
You'll forgive me for my skepticism that this is anything worthy of more than a sidebar in the wake of the flap generated over "ipo
Re: (Score:2)
I'm curious what you base this assertion on. A quick bow is a gesture of greeting and parting. My understanding was it was more common in Eastern Asia, so Obama's bow may have been culturally misplaced, but otherwise I fail to see what the issue is.
By quirk of the constitution, the President is, not only the head of the executive branch, but the Head of State. When the President shakes hands, the United States is shaking hands; when the President bows, the United States is bowing.
It's not how the indecent will play in the US news media, but how that bow will play to the rest of the world. This is probably just a cultural misinterpretation; but, for better or worse, this is a misinterpretation that the United States has made, not just one the President
Re: (Score:1)
That is an unreasonable demand of anyone, and I should hope you know that. He didn't slap Abdullah in the face, he used an odd greeting which, by all accounts, appears to have only riled up conservatives here in the U.S.
Like I said, I can't find anybody who really seems to care about this except editorial writers who merely make mention of it as a part of a larger summary of the summit (or
Re: (Score:2)
That is an unreasonable demand of anyone, and I should hope you know that.
Of course, it's completely unreasonable to expect perfection from a person. But, for everyone, mistakes have their costs. And, the President's mistakes bear a very high cost indeed.
Even if the scope of the fallout from this particular mistake is limited to increased domestic criticism from the Republicans, the President must still spend a portion of his political capital, and his and his staff's valuable time, dealing with the effects. One of the primary tools at the President's disposal is the ability to s
Re: (Score:1)
No, he doesn't. Frankly, I'm glad he ignores people who harp on this sort of nonsense. It gives him more time to work on real problems, something that some citizens of this country apparently don't really care about.
Re: (Score:1)
Excellent post. I particularly enjoyed the parts where you clearly defined what metrics would constitute the "saving" of the economy, what he's doing wrong, why they're wrong, and you're own ideas regarding what could be done better. Calling the president a "fucker" really put you over the top though and made it the classy, intelligent, and thoughtful post that could be surpassed only by a true expert in the field or a dead marmot.
Re: (Score:2)
I actually have to agree with your call on this one. The AC should have kept his comment to himself.
I think you were being nice, though.
Re: (Score:1)
Huh, and I kind of thought I was being a little too rude. I don't know, it's one thing to have a disagreement of opinion. Nothing wrong with that. Reasonable differences of opinion are called debates and they tend to move issues toward compromise which, in the end, is good for everyone. But one thing that really grates on my nerves is when someone insists on being disagreeable over something without offering an explanation or alternative. For some reason, that just really gets my goat.
Re: (Score:2)
Like I said, I can't find anybody who really seems to care about this except editorial writers who merely make mention of it as a part of a larger summary of the summit (or refer to the apparently fake outrage from the right), and right-wingers who have spent a lot of time recently being outraged over some pretty ridiculous trivialities.
Who on the left is really interested in the United States remaining a super power? None that *I* know of. It comes as no surprise to me then, that they are silent when the US head of state bows before the leader of another nation.
Would the Saudis complain that a leader of another nation bowed before their king? Hardly.
As far as the stink about the Queen and Michelle Obama, all I can say is that if the Queen let Michelle touch her, that's the Queen's business.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm curious what you base this assertion on. A quick bow is a gesture of greeting and parting. My understanding was it was more common in Eastern Asia, so Obama's bow may have been culturally misplaced, but otherwise I fail to see what the issue is.
It's the degree of incline that is the issue here. Obama could have bent his waist, not exceeding a 30 degree angle, say, and been polite without causing an uproar, and I wouldn't have said a thing. Bending to a near-90 degree angle is only done by those subservient to the person(s) being bowed to.
The problem is not that the United States is above protocol, but that it displays ignorance and a lack of tact in doing something like this.