Obama’s Increasingly Dangerous World
During last year’s election, liberal pundits led us to believe that all would be well with the world if only we would elect a new leader who would engage with the world in diplomatic conversation. We were told that all of the international crises we faced during the last eight years were due to the fact that George Bush was stupid, mean, arrogant, stubborn, a bully and unwilling to listen to anyone else.
Obama was presented as a charismatic charmer and listener. We were told his ability to show empathy for an opponent’s point of view would do wonders for America’s image in the eyes of the world. We were told that if only we could elect an affable president, someone who would make the world like us again, that all would be well. We were told that violence would be put on the run as our enemies would drop their weapons in awe of and respect for our new benevolent and open-minded president.
However, the world only seems to have become more dangerous. A much more dangerous place, in fact. The first sign was when attacks on American troops in Iraq and Afghanistan began to increase after Obama was sworn in as president. Next came increased Taliban attacks on Pakistan. In fact, there is worry that the Taliban may soon take over significant portions of Pakistani territory.
According to the May 28, 2009 New York Times, "Multiple bombs exploded in two Pakistani cities on Thursday, just hours after Taliban groups issued an extraordinary warning for people to evacuate several large cities, saying they were preparing ‘major attacks.’Â Three bombs detonated in Peshawar… and one in the country’s troubled west," killing at least 37 people in two days and wounding dozens more.
On top of that you have North Korea which is boiling over with nuclear explosions and missile tests. You have Iran which has not given the slightest indication they plan to put their nuke-making plans on hold. (And you have Obama who has through an act of empathetic generosity , given them a huge 7-month window to decide)!
You have the European NATO countries which when asked by the contrite and apologetic Obama to contribute just a few more troops to the Afghan effort gave a polite "NO THANK YOU!"
You have these same European countries which relentlessly bashed America for daring to hold terrorists at Guantanamo who were captured on the battlefield, turn Obama down outright when he asked if any of them would be willing to take a terrorist or two. Oh! sorry… France agreed to take ONE! One down – 239 to go. Thanks for your support Nicolas!
You have the Germans who in December 2008 were so ga ga over the new president they were gushing about how they were going to take a whole slew of Guantanamo terrorists. Nine in all. But who after much consideration and reflection, and after hearing Obama admit that America had been arrogant and dismissive of Europe, decided to take – guess how many? ZERO! Nein to Nine the Germans now say.
All of this rejection coming after Obama apologized for America saying, "there have been times where America has shown arrogance and been dismissive and even derisive" of Europe.
I’m willing to wager that Obama will learn the wrong lesson from this. Instead of realizing that apologizing for the country you lead doesn’t work, because it makes other leaders think you’re weak – (they would never apologize for their own countries) – Obama will inevitably conclude that he hasn’t apologized enough. He’ll believe that the European leaders didn’t believe he was sincere, so he’ll have to double-up on the apologies to convince them. And while we wait for him to learn the correct lessons, our world will only become more and more dangerous.
I’m sorry, but you fail to mention that we have lost pretty much all of our credibility as a police state with the whole “Iraq has nukes” thing. Also, Bush basically handed Afghanistan back to the terrorists. Obama has to clean up two wars, luckily he has the wherewithal to keep Gates on to finish the task he started. Listen, I do not believe for one second that the war in Iraq has made us safer, and do you want to know something, all those Taliban fighters in Pakistan, guess where they all came from? It rhymes with tafghanistan. So Obama is making the world a more dangerous place? No, you neo-cons putting everyone on red alert with your psychopathic antics of endless war against a completely amorphous enemy (“terrorists”) are the real problem. You can’t kill an ideal with guns and bombs. You should know that.
Britain has taken a few of the prisoners, but if any one of them were innocent, do you realize the implications? Torture would be the least of Bush/Cheney’s worries.
“We were told that all of the international crises we faced during the last eight years were due to the fact that George Bush was stupid, mean, arrogant, stubborn, a bully and unwilling to listen to anyone else.”
Wrong. You make believe that liberals say that because it fits into your stereotype of them. In reality, no one blames Bush for 9/11. No one blames Bush for the greatest loss of life on American soil since the civil war. No liberal, and no conservative can do that. It is the response to 9/11 that we might disagree with–and therein lies the stubbornness that Bush’s father didn’t show. Frankly, George Bush would have sat at his ranch or Camp David, shooting the s**t every day for the rest of his presidency (like Reagan). That’s the kind of conservative he is. Then he has to craft America’s response. He has to make good on the saying: “never again.”
We had the world with us. We had been attacked by lowlifes, whose only qualm with us was we were the great satan out to destroy the world and supported the “zionist” regime in Israel. Stupid. Now, at this point, we had two roads to go down. We had 1. multilaterally Kick the Taliban’s ass, kill/capture Osama Bin Laden and country build in Afghanistan, followed by global strengthening in troubled areas that bred this guys and more (emphasis on Africa, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Syria). Or we could do 2. Create a “coalition of the willing,” define the axis of evil, alienate allies with a “with us or against us” mentality, kick the Taliban’s ass, kill/capture Osama Bin Laden, then continue on to other countries who we deem evil and justify the war with non-existent WMD’s.
Which one did we chose? Which one sounds better? Which one makes the world safer? (Note: for 2, we failed to capture/kill Osama Bin Laden, yes, you conservatives FAILED to get the man who bankrolled and began the institution that brought down the world trade centers) Why? Why did it fail? Was it because we went in their with fewer troops than firefighters who responded to 9/11? Did we wait too long? Did we move on to quickly to the next big adventure? You have the CIA and FBI ready to stop their stupid little agency war, and NSA ready to cooperate, and what happens? We’re back to square one. Don’t blame Obama on this one.
Hey Pedro… while you won’t deny that the war in Iraq kept us safer there is one thing you can’t deny… no one can deny. And that is that we had no more terrorist attacks on American soil for the duration of the Bush presidency. And we know Bush took MANY actions to make that happen. So you can’t deny that Bush was successful in keeping us safe for seven more years.
NOW, we supposedly have the world with us because the amazing Obama is president – and everyone said if we would only elect him then the world would get with us. But as noted in the other article that I see you responded to as well, THE WORLD IS NOT TAKING GUANTANAMO TERRORISTS OFF OUR HANDS! So what good does it do to have the world “with us” (whatever that means) if they don’t keep their promises and help us? And why are they being just as unhelpful now with Obama as pres as they were with Bush?