Yeah, I get a little annoyed when Americans (and especially presidents) complain about Europe having small militaries when the reason for that was US policy.
Obama's "Blunt" Foreign Policy Interview: France, UK = "Free Riders", ISIS = "Joker"
- Thread starter jgwhiteus
- Start date
- Status
Yeah, I get a little annoyed when Americans (and especially presidents) complain about Europe having small militaries when the reason for that was US policy.
Abinash117
Member
Probably, but not necessary wrong and maybe its purpose is to highlight the issue publicly.
France doesn't deserve the flak, setting aside Libya. They've done a lot and recently in Mali, Cote d'Ivoire, and the CAR.
these are the same world leaders who are totally willing to say we should be doing more about situations like syria
i am 100% ok with obama calling them out
Dubbedinenglish
Banned
And trying to close out a deal to sell Russia warships while they were starting their invasion of Ukraine.
Optimusdouche
Banned
Obama personally doesn't really like Europe or Europeans that much.
He views them as mostly a continent of racism and dead culture. When you see how many European countries with burgeoning Neo Nazi movements, and ingrained cultural racism, you can't really blame him. He didn't even bother going to Paris after the Charlie Hebdo shootings, rightly so.
From the very beginning Obama wanted to reorient relations to South America and Asia. Even his big trade deal, pretty much leaves out Europe in the cold.
I can understand why Obama doesn't like Cameron, but it seems a little foolish of Obama to have destroyed a huge diplomatic advantage America had with Britain. Obama flushed that down the toilet, making Britain support China's own IMF, that would not have existed without British support.
And it has allowed China to legitimize many of their industries by going through Britain, like their massive Nuclear deal in Britain, that will bring money to China, and allow them to continue growing at the cost of American and European business. This is all because Obama diplomatically isolated Britain. Or one can view it as, Cameron isolating himself.
And this whole, we're being used for our military is ridiculous. No one forces America to fight wars, or have over 800 fucking military bases around the world, or have a military that is bigger than the next 13 combined together. Ever since WW1 America has been a war nation. America does this because it is in its own interest to do this.
Dyson Industries
Banned
Whose alt is this?
silvermember
Banned
you are wrong. The maximum a president can stay in office is 10 years. So technically yes a two term, but try making that work.
I would to explain how that is U.S policy for EU/Nato for not providing their fair share? The EU gets all the benefit of the U.S army and also better services while that money could be spent on its citizens. So please explain to the class.
The definition of free rider excludes China and Putin.
China and Russia are not U.S allies, they are not in an alliance that requires them to put in an equal amount of resources. Obama's problem is that France and UK do not carry their own weight in conflict and expect the U.S to. Without the U.S, Russia can just lay waste of Europe.
He had a case of ACAS (American Canada Amnesia Syndrome), a well known neurological problem with Americans, who sometimes forget Canada exists for months at a time.
Succinct Verbosity
Member
The UK and France were heavily in favour of intervention in Libya compared the the US. It seems to me that Obama is more annoyed that France and the UK were eager to push an interventionist strategy, but they were unwilling to follow up on their desires and America had to pick up the slack. I don't think this is a case of Europe being free-riders as a rule, but on this occasion they certainly were.
The Times article on Libya gave a lot of background on this. Basically there was a ton of energy in France and the UK for intervention, and given a coalition and a moral imperative Obama was willing to make the attempt.
But there wasn't any energy post-intervention for doing the dirty work of actually finding a way to create a functional government in Libya. Partly I'm unconvinced it was even possible, but it certainly wasn't possible if nobody in the coalition was interested in trying.
European countries demanding the US be more assertive and aggressive in the face of Russian expansionism while doing nothing themselves to deter Putin. Pretty accurate actually. Europe has long enjoyed the protection of the US while doing little to defend themselves.
I actually think it's much more about the UK and France looking for help to defend what they consider spheres of influence in Africa and the Middle East than it is about Russian expansionism. I mean, we have a treaty that requires us to do stuff about Russian expansionism, it's not crazy for them to want us to be there. It's clear from the article that Obama believes we do have obligations with regards to Russia, they just don't involve protecting Russia's client states from Russia.
It's European desires to be interventionist in areas that used to be European playgrounds that seems to irk Obama, not without reason.
Jezbollah
Member
Google the Suez Canal crisis. The US made it pretty clear that France and the U.K. shouldn't intervene internationally, and should generally follow America's lead on foriegn interventions.
Personally I think it's great we're not going around invading countries, but it is pretty annoying to be called out on something we didn't have much choice in, especially after we followed you guys into two of your awful pointless wars over the last two decades based on some stupid idea of a 'special relationship' that Obama has done his best to destroy over the last 7 years.
But we were right on that one because the Suez Canal thing was an obvious post-colonial power-grab, even by the standards of the time. The crisis in Libya was morally just.
That was literally 60 years ago.
You might as well say that Europe's noninterventionism is to respect the Monroe Doctrine.
There's a lot of misinformation here. The attitudes towards Europe is one that is largely hyperbole. As the piece notes, Obama isn't overly "romantic" about Europe, but that's a world away from a dying continent (it's not).
Not attending the Charlie Hebdo memorial is in line with his attitudes towards terrorism; resilience, not overreaction.
There is another "big trade deal" exclusively with Europe, the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP). Again, not a dying continent and the pivot to Asia is not a mutually exclusive gesture.
I don't know why you think Obama dislikes or even isolated Cameron. He's not chummy with him like Bush and Blair, but Cameron, for all his faults, is a workable international partner. He's largely isolated England by distracting it with EU renegotiations in a silly attempt to appease Tory backbenchers and UKIPers.
Also not sure what the Asian Infrastructure Development Bank, which is what it seems you're referring to, has to do with anything.
The free rider comment is largely focused on many NATO allies not meeting their defense obligations, which is ~2% of GDP. IIRC, France and the U.K. both meet it, but many others don't and end up unable to adequately contribute where applicable. That's not a matter of funding a war machine or even throwing away as much money as the US does on its military, but is just a matter of meeting your obligations as part of the alliance.
Also, thanks to whomever corrected me re:term limits. I stand corrected.
I kind of figured it might be for something like this. Light a fire under everyone. I would just hope at the very least that he expressed this to them before saying it publicly in an interview.
I can see how you pieced together how he doesn't much care for Europeans, but I still don't see how he sees them as racists and part of a dead culture. How do we know this?
Russia is a little complicated. Western Europe did not have a problem with it until they started rampaging due to Nato(Well, mostly US) breathing down it's neck. The orange revolution in Ukraine was also a big fuck up that escalated this whole mess, then there was also Georgia. Both of those had much more political involvement from US as opposed to France, Britain or Germany. Eastern Europe has always had a shit slinging contest with Russia, not like it's anything new really. Estonia is always trying to pull Finland in it's stupidity as well.
Obama has had a negative view of the UK since he took office. I think its an ignorant one based on history that current outlook personally.
The UK lost interest in Libya because it went to shit.
This is a little like saying you threw your dog out because it wasn't as cute as it looked in the window. You rallied a bunch of military forces and overthrew the current government. It's not really acceptable to then just get bored because things aren't going as well as you'd like.
well it works both ways I suppose - would we need a big military if the US wasn't poking around in so many pies over the last 50-60 years?
Also known as "Did I bring a hat?" Syndrome.
superdeluxe
Member
Damn..Obama essentially killed Ukraine's chances of ever being free.
Europe is only interventionists when the US follows suit. When European NATO bombed Libya it did so only because the US supported it. Same in Mali. In these conflicts the US was instrumental behind the scenes providing much needed intelligence and logisitical support. The transporters used by French forces to get to Mali were provided by the US.
Western Europe (ie, France and Germany) still have no problem with Russia, as evident by France's attempts to sell warships to Russia, until heavy US pressure shut that down. Meanwhile Germany was always the most reluctant European country in slapping sanctions on Russia, Merkel being a fluent Russian speaker (she did grow up in the DDR after all) and considered quite close to Putin (Putin also a fluent German speaker from his days as a KGB officer in East Berlin).
The Orange Revolution was in 2004. I fail to see how that was a "fuck up" though. As for Georgia that was Russia invading after creating a pretext for war.
Aside from Nuland handing out cookies to protesters in Kiev there was little US involvement. Events spiralled so quickly out of control that the West was left playing catch-up throughout.
Shit slinging? Hmm, right. I guess 50 years of Russian occupation will do that to half a continent eh?
Wait what?!
Mass_Pincup
Banned
That's not what happened.
superdeluxe
Member
With no US, that basically means No NATO..which means Russia can do whatever the f**k it wants.
The deal was made years before the Ukraine crisis. France canceled it due to the invasion while the frist frigate was finished. France had to pay some penalties to Russia due to the breach of contract.
Juncker did that a few days ago
http://www.dpa-international.com/ne...ther-20-25-years-juncker-says-a-48506292.html
That's not quite what happened. After Gaddafi's overthrow the West offered the new Libyan provisional government assistance in building up a new security force as it knew full well what happens once an old, unpopular dictatorship is overthrown. The new govt refused such help. Even the UN were asking to be allowed deploy peacekeepers to the country. What could the West have done, forcefully deploy troops over the objections of the new government?
It was the same as in Iraq where the Iraqi govt demanded US forces leave, which they did. And then the Iraqi Army fled in blind panic when ISIS invade half of the country. It's not always the West's fault.
Sumio Mondo
Member
Funny, I view the US as a country of racism and shallow culture.
References: Donald Trump and his rally/followers, KKK, New York cops, Hollywood casting decisions; we could be here all day.
The US had, to my memory, alot of financial involvement in that one as well as marking a political shift where the country was no longer on the same terms with Russia and later escalating to the current situation with the hostility between both nations. As for Georgia, the pretext was made after they deemed that the involvement that Georgia had with Nato would be a threat to them. Sovereign nations and all that, but you don't really get to play geopolitics without concequence, that's just how the current world works. Same goes for Eastern Europe still having a hissyfit.
The jab at Estonia was due to them making political statements of Russia not caring about the neutrality that the Nordics usually have in terms of geopolitics. Basically trying to get others to cover their ass over their misgivings with another nation.
Muppet of a Man
Member
If there was nothing of value in the middle east (i.e., no cheap fossil fuels to drive modern economies with), you could bet your ass we'd have as much involvement there as we do with places in sub-saharan Africa that are constantly in a state of civil war or failed state mode.
All the more reason to move towards sustainable sources of energy / energy capture.
All the more reason to move towards sustainable sources of energy / energy capture.
France cancelled delivery of the Mistral's after the Russian annexation of Crimea, but only after heavy pressure from the US over the deal, a deal they had long been annoyed about.
Selling them both to Egypt though was just as stupid though. They were top of the range amphibious assaults vessels that could have been kept with NATO, perhaps as some sort of multinational rapid deployment force, similar to the airlift alliance within NATO that provides shared C-17 capabilities to European countries.
Woah there Obama!
We all know Libya is all Hillary's fault, don't you go pinning the blame on Europeans for that one!
If you think that had no effect on foreign policies to that extent I have bad news for you.
And 60 years is nothing for the diplomacy of these countries.
Granted most people who worked there at the time probably retired but there's such a thing as a continuity in policies.
We all know Libya is all Hillary's fault, don't you go pinning the blame on Europeans for that one!
If you think that had no effect on foreign policies to that extent I have bad news for you.
And 60 years is nothing for the diplomacy of these countries.
Granted most people who worked there at the time probably retired but there's such a thing as a continuity in policies.
superdeluxe
Member
So Ridicilous. The Euro Maidan happened because Ukraine wanted Europe (and Europe pushed those hopes).
Now when shit is getting tough, EU is basically letting Ukraine to wallow in the winds..back to Soviet control.
Good job.
No Wonder Eastern and Central Europe is concerned
Lol. Good luck with President Trump.
The US has been supplying various forms of aid to Ukraine since 1991, mainly in nuclear decommissioning and help with Chernobyl. After the corrupt Yanukovych was ousted the aid has massively increased. I see no issue here.
I'm not sure what point you're trying to make here. Sorry, but this is damn near incipherable.
OK, WHAT "hissyfit" are you on about? Russian aggression against Poland and the Baltic states?! Decades of occupation. Gee, I wonder why those countries might not be too enamoured towards Russia!
Again, no idea what this is all about. Estonia is a NATO member covered by Article 5 so OF COURSE their "ass" is covered. Is there a point to any of this?
Oh I agree, the sale to Egypt was stupid. If a member of NATO wanted to buy them I'm sure France would have sell them to this member. But since most of NATO members don't want to spend a cent for their armies, it would have been hard to find.
Well the same could be said of Afghanistan and yet US forces are there. While the large oil and gas deposits in the ME do undoubtedly influence policy towards the region it should be mentioned the area is strategically important anyway due to its location at the juncture between Europe, Africa and Asia, with the vitally important Suez canal running right through the region. No forgetting Israel, a key US ally in the region. Oil or not the region is going to be important to the US and the West for many decades to come, especially if cities like Dubai and Qatar emerge as key financial trading centers on a par with Hong Kong and Singapore.
I invite you to take a look at the republican primary in your own country before saying that, thanks.
OT: yes, the US are by far the driving nation in NATO, and the one that does most of the military work. It is however a result of the US's own policy, so...
I'm also not sure Germany militaring up would be swallowed so easily by other nations after the past century.
Isn't the military power from Germany still limited by the WWII peace treaty?
It's more than that; it's a racist trope.
Indeed which was why I suggested it would have been wise to place them under the authority of a NATO consortium like the 3 C-17 Globemasters being shared by NATO countries. Or even establish an EU rapid reaction force with the vessels as the center pieces. But it's like you said, Europe doesn't want to spend anything on their forces. I wouldn't be surprised if Putin's new best friend General Al-Sis sells one of the vessels to Russia, a move that would really piss off the US.
theignoramus
Member
Neocons are already going in on the article.
-Obama should be the president of a Scandinavian country if he thinks climate change is more of a pressing concern than ISIS!
-He has a defeatist attitude about Russia and its "ferocious aggression"
(Funny, as Obama says, I dont remember windbags like Max Boot attacking GWB for not going apeshit over the 2008 War in Georgia)
-He doesnt believe in American credibility and deterrence!
(Hes only been the most aggressive president ever in assassinating direct threats to American security..even going so far as to execute an American citizen)
The article is the perfect encapsulation of why the Reaganite Republicans hate Obama, he refuses to pander to their desire for macho posturing, chest beating and knee jerk reflexive applications of American power.
Okay, so the fearless Reagan helped bring about the fall of the USSR, but he also wrecked Latin America and allowed Pakistan to get nukes.
-Obama should be the president of a Scandinavian country if he thinks climate change is more of a pressing concern than ISIS!
-He has a defeatist attitude about Russia and its "ferocious aggression"
(Funny, as Obama says, I dont remember windbags like Max Boot attacking GWB for not going apeshit over the 2008 War in Georgia)
-He doesnt believe in American credibility and deterrence!
(Hes only been the most aggressive president ever in assassinating direct threats to American security..even going so far as to execute an American citizen)
The article is the perfect encapsulation of why the Reaganite Republicans hate Obama, he refuses to pander to their desire for macho posturing, chest beating and knee jerk reflexive applications of American power.
Okay, so the fearless Reagan helped bring about the fall of the USSR, but he also wrecked Latin America and allowed Pakistan to get nukes.
- Status