10 ms·

Well written. Being myself an Austrian (not only by economic affiliation) with ties to the USA I just today contemplated that in a way Obama will do much more d

Well written. Being myself an Austrian (not only by economic affiliation) with ties to the USA I just today contemplated that in a way Obama will do much more damage to the American reputation than Bush (2) ever could. Bush could be seen as an anomaly. He was not elected by a majority of the American people for his first turn, and even if everybody shook their head about the obvious oilgrab in the Iraq based on blatant lies, people could somehow understand that you don't change an administration amidst a war. Obama was seen as a return of the USA that was always admired by many if not most people in Europe. Like someone coming to their senses after a violent fit, Europe was ready to embrace an America that put effort in preserving and spreading civil rights, peace and democracy with means that did not involve letting countries descend in mayhem that bloody dictators would envy. Then - he did not shut down Guantanamo (and he could have done it if he had acted fast and spent time to convince his party) - he did not Veto a continuation of the Patriot Act - he let his administration spy on the press to an unprecedented extent - he defends spying on everybody outside or with ties to outside the country If this is the rational, the civilized America, then we are in deep trouble.

mpyne 13y ago
While I agree in essence with your characterization of the job done by Obama, I do want to point out (again) that it will take quite some advances in physics before we're able to locate the parallel universe where Obama may have been able to shut down the prison at Gitmo. I think it's hard to imagine the sheer and total resistance to shutting down that prison if you haven't been in the country to see it yourself. I still don't understand the reasoning to this day. But there was never a chance, with the Congresses Obama was handed with, that the prison would be completely shut down. I don't know whether it's a bunch of representatives attempting to look 'Tough on Terror' or what... but you have to pin Guantanamo on the people as a whole.
- AlexeiSadeski 13y ago
  He could've shut it down a dozen different ways, had he wanted to. He's expended zero political capital on this issue.
  - Svip 13y ago
    Health care was clearly more important. So at least Americans got that.
    - kefka 13y ago
      Yep. That means... Instead of working 39 hours per week for one job, I'll work 29 hours a week, and have to get multiple jobs. Yay.
- tedivm 13y ago
  I disagree. Obama had a lot of oppertunity here, but more importantly he never intended to actually stop indefinite detention. Rather than go through all the reasons here I'll just point out one of many articles that debunks this reasoning- http://www.salon.com/2012/07/23/the_obama_gitmo_myth/ http://www.salon.com/2012/07/23/the_obama_gitmo_myth/
- lifeformed 13y ago
  He shouldn't have promised that he would, then.
- rogerbinns 13y ago
  I rather see him publicly try and fail, than not try. To stand up there and point out how he did as much as is constitutionally possible, and point out the representatives who prevented it from happening. ie the fault of gitmo not closing should be clear and not rest with him.
- gruseom 13y ago
  But there was never a chance, with the Congresses Obama was handed with, that the prison would be completely shut down. You've added a critical word there with "completely". Congress blocked Obama from bringing Guantanamo inmates to the US for imprisonment or trial. But 86 of the 166 inmates are never going to be tried. They're already cleared for immediate release. Everyone (CIA, DoD) has agreed to this. Obama has the power to release them with the stroke of a pen, and the State Dept. apparently has a plan to do it and is just waiting for the go-ahead. So while Obama may not have the power to close Guantanamo completely, he does have the power to free more than half of the prisoners there, the ones who are not accused of anything. Yet there they stay, for no discernable (other than political) reasons. Pinning the blame on Congress has worked for Obama politically, but if it's true that he's the one keeping more than half of the prisoners there, and with weaker justification since they are the ones unanimously agreed to be innocent, then it seems fair to say that Obama is more at fault than Congress is. Source: http://ianmasters.com/sites/default/files/mp3/bbriefing_2013_05_23a_carlos%20warner.mp3 http://ianmasters.com/sites/default/files/mp3/bbriefing_2013..., which is an interview (starting at 1:36) with one of the public defenders involved.
  - res0nat0r 13y ago
    Release them to where? Their home countries don't even want to take them back now I believe.
    - wslh 13y ago
      What?
    - gruseom 13y ago
      The interview I cited didn't say where, explicitly; what he said was that arrangements had been made by the State Department and it was the White House holding things back. I'd like to know the answer to your question too, but I'm hesitant to accept the "there's nowhere to send them" meme, which one hears often, without something to distinguish it as fact rather than propaganda. For example, another often-repeated meme, "these are the worst of the worst", is apparently entirely untrue in these 86 cases. (Even the half dozen prisoners who have actually been tried were apparently mostly just cooks and drivers and such.)
- TallGuyShort 13y ago
  So a person can just make empty promises on a campaign, get elected and do a bunch of crap people disagree with via executive order, and then blame all the stuff he didn't do on Congress? edit: And yes, informed voters should know what the President can and can not reasonably promise, but I would hope that presidential candidates would actually have the integrity to not intentionally mislead people, and that a person who promises to close Gitmo would at least be more outspoken about his desire to do so.
spitx 13y ago
Let's not get overboard. Europe (alongside EVERY nation that has a respectably digital-ready telecommunications network) spies on it's peoples. It's almost a mark of a nation's jetting into the trillion dollar club. America gets the lion share of the criticism because it has been bestowed on - for better or worse owing to its capacity for taking human toll (of its own citizenry) - the uneasy office of the global police order. European critics should ask themselves which country constitutes the majority of NATO's standing forces. Is it Spain? Germany? Scotland? France? Italy? You can have your say when your countrymen submit themselves in (proportionally) larger numbers. Until then, take a seat. Source: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mjrBO10n8V8 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mjrBO10n8V8
- DoubleMalt 13y ago
  I have no idea what the NATO has to do with it. As an Austrian, NATO was never there to protect us. Your argument is at best ignorant, and at worst willfully distracting from the cause. America was admired for setting an example as a great nation where people can live freely. The policing activities after WW2 (for which Europe has to be thankful) were mostly ill conceived (with the low points being Vitnam and Iraq).
  - spitx 13y ago
    As an Austrian, NATO was never there to protect us. America was admired for setting an example as a great nation where people can live freely. What, in the civilized lands of Stiegl, has ever threatened the free movement and assembly of people, at least since the downfall of the Austro-Hungarian empire? And what has prevented Austrians from immigrating to the shores of America, like the Germans, Swedes and the Dutch? I'd really like to know. (Very trace amounts of sarcasm deposited in this response.)
- lispm 13y ago
  Sure not. The US standing military is for defending the US empire and has nothing to do with NATO. NATO's task was never to be a global police. That's a task some US politicians selected for the US. We've seen how that works.
RyJones 13y ago
How much oil did the US get out of the obvious oil grab?
- Volpe 13y ago
  "...Oil fields contracted include the "super-giant" Majnoon Field, Halfaya Field, West Qurna Field and Rumaila Field." [1] If you look up each of those fields, you'll see they are licensed to Shell, BP, and Exxon [2] [3] [4] [5] Given all of those companies have a strong presence in the US and definitely have lobbying power. I'd say the US got effective control over one of the largest oil reserves in the world. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_reserves_in_Iraq http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_reserves_in_Iraq [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halfaya_Field http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halfaya_Field [3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_Qurna_Field http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_Qurna_Field [4] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rumaila_Field http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rumaila_Field [5] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Majnoon_oil_field http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Majnoon_oil_field
  - turar 13y ago
    Directly from the links you posted: - Halfaya: CNPC, Total SA, Petronas - West Qurna: ExxonMobil, Shell, Lukoil, Statoil, Eni SpA, CNPC, Petronas - Rumalia: BP, CNPC - Majnoon: Shell, Petronas Of all these, only ExxonMobil is an American company. Shell and BP are not American, regardless of the presence, unless you want to call Exxon a British or a Dutch company as well. But more importantly, all these contracts were awarded on a competitive basis, with a bidding process. Especially telling is an entry for Rumalia field: "ExxonMobil which also bid on servicing this field at a price $4.80 walked away due to price cutting terms by the Iraqi Government leaving BP and CNPC as winners of the contract.".
    - Volpe 13y ago
      You don't have to be an American company to benefit from American policy. And I'm sure congressmen benefit from the "non-american" oil companies. The question I would like to know the answer to, is who was drilling the oil before the war... it seems unclear, but if it was Iraq (national companies) then the war was defiantly an oil grab.
JoachimS 13y ago
I'd love to hear some statements from the Norwegian Peace Prize Committee, who in a fit of Obama euphoria gave him the prize during his first presidency.
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
- brg 13y ago
  In my estimation, the award was not given in a fit of Obama euphoria as much as it was awarded in celebration of the removal of George Bush. I have heard it claimed that the committee's choice of Carter and Gore as recipients were more criticism of Bush than they were in response to those efforts, but I do not believe that argument holds. Many of the recipients from the first eight years of this century were very much deserving. http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/laureates/ http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/laureates/
DavideNL 13y ago
I'm half Dutch/German and i fully agree with the view of the author and the article. However, i believe one important piece of information is missing from most articles i read about this topic; Obviously it is much harder to create/restore something than it is to break something. In my opinion Bush made a big mess and Obama is doing a great job turning the whole thing around and leading the Americans in the right direction. There is only so much one person can do, and besides that, change should always happen slowly to prevent instability. We forget that the reason all of this was possible in the first place are obviously the American people itself; For example why on earth did they vote for George Bush the second time... From my point of view, the Americans have some kind of unrational fear of terrorists and choose to give up all privacy because they believed it would give them more security. Instead, it gave them another terrorist: the NSA. Hopefully they will learn from their mistakes and continue in the right direction. I believe Obama started of good and hope he will continue to do so.
- flyinRyan 13y ago
  Do you somehow not realize that most of these policies (e.g. NSA) were expanded by Obama? Are you really so enraptured by a deep film voice? Name 5 positive things Obama did that "continue in the right direction".

mpyne 13y ago

While I agree in essence with your characterization of the job done by Obama, I do want to point out (again) that it will take quite some advances in physics before we're able to locate the parallel universe where Obama may have been able to shut down the prison at Gitmo. I think it's hard to imagine the sheer and total resistance to shutting down that prison if you haven't been in the country to see it yourself. I still don't understand the reasoning to this day. But there was never a chance, with the Congresses Obama was handed with, that the prison would be completely shut down. I don't know whether it's a bunch of representatives attempting to look 'Tough on Terror' or what... but you have to pin Guantanamo on the people as a whole.

AlexeiSadeski 13y ago
He could've shut it down a dozen different ways, had he wanted to. He's expended zero political capital on this issue.
- Svip 13y ago
  Health care was clearly more important. So at least Americans got that.
  - kefka 13y ago
    Yep. That means... Instead of working 39 hours per week for one job, I'll work 29 hours a week, and have to get multiple jobs. Yay.
tedivm 13y ago
I disagree. Obama had a lot of oppertunity here, but more importantly he never intended to actually stop indefinite detention. Rather than go through all the reasons here I'll just point out one of many articles that debunks this reasoning- http://www.salon.com/2012/07/23/the_obama_gitmo_myth/ http://www.salon.com/2012/07/23/the_obama_gitmo_myth/
lifeformed 13y ago
He shouldn't have promised that he would, then.
rogerbinns 13y ago
I rather see him publicly try and fail, than not try. To stand up there and point out how he did as much as is constitutionally possible, and point out the representatives who prevented it from happening. ie the fault of gitmo not closing should be clear and not rest with him.
gruseom 13y ago
But there was never a chance, with the Congresses Obama was handed with, that the prison would be completely shut down. You've added a critical word there with "completely". Congress blocked Obama from bringing Guantanamo inmates to the US for imprisonment or trial. But 86 of the 166 inmates are never going to be tried. They're already cleared for immediate release. Everyone (CIA, DoD) has agreed to this. Obama has the power to release them with the stroke of a pen, and the State Dept. apparently has a plan to do it and is just waiting for the go-ahead. So while Obama may not have the power to close Guantanamo completely, he does have the power to free more than half of the prisoners there, the ones who are not accused of anything. Yet there they stay, for no discernable (other than political) reasons. Pinning the blame on Congress has worked for Obama politically, but if it's true that he's the one keeping more than half of the prisoners there, and with weaker justification since they are the ones unanimously agreed to be innocent, then it seems fair to say that Obama is more at fault than Congress is. Source: http://ianmasters.com/sites/default/files/mp3/bbriefing_2013_05_23a_carlos%20warner.mp3 http://ianmasters.com/sites/default/files/mp3/bbriefing_2013..., which is an interview (starting at 1:36) with one of the public defenders involved.
- res0nat0r 13y ago
  Release them to where? Their home countries don't even want to take them back now I believe.
  - wslh 13y ago
    What?
  - gruseom 13y ago
    The interview I cited didn't say where, explicitly; what he said was that arrangements had been made by the State Department and it was the White House holding things back. I'd like to know the answer to your question too, but I'm hesitant to accept the "there's nowhere to send them" meme, which one hears often, without something to distinguish it as fact rather than propaganda. For example, another often-repeated meme, "these are the worst of the worst", is apparently entirely untrue in these 86 cases. (Even the half dozen prisoners who have actually been tried were apparently mostly just cooks and drivers and such.)
TallGuyShort 13y ago
So a person can just make empty promises on a campaign, get elected and do a bunch of crap people disagree with via executive order, and then blame all the stuff he didn't do on Congress? edit: And yes, informed voters should know what the President can and can not reasonably promise, but I would hope that presidential candidates would actually have the integrity to not intentionally mislead people, and that a person who promises to close Gitmo would at least be more outspoken about his desire to do so.

spitx 13y ago

Let's not get overboard. Europe (alongside EVERY nation that has a respectably digital-ready telecommunications network) spies on it's peoples. It's almost a mark of a nation's jetting into the trillion dollar club. America gets the lion share of the criticism because it has been bestowed on - for better or worse owing to its capacity for taking human toll (of its own citizenry) - the uneasy office of the global police order. European critics should ask themselves which country constitutes the majority of NATO's standing forces. Is it Spain? Germany? Scotland? France? Italy? You can have your say when your countrymen submit themselves in (proportionally) larger numbers. Until then, take a seat. Source: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mjrBO10n8V8 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mjrBO10n8V8

DoubleMalt 13y ago
I have no idea what the NATO has to do with it. As an Austrian, NATO was never there to protect us. Your argument is at best ignorant, and at worst willfully distracting from the cause. America was admired for setting an example as a great nation where people can live freely. The policing activities after WW2 (for which Europe has to be thankful) were mostly ill conceived (with the low points being Vitnam and Iraq).
- spitx 13y ago
  As an Austrian, NATO was never there to protect us. America was admired for setting an example as a great nation where people can live freely. What, in the civilized lands of Stiegl, has ever threatened the free movement and assembly of people, at least since the downfall of the Austro-Hungarian empire? And what has prevented Austrians from immigrating to the shores of America, like the Germans, Swedes and the Dutch? I'd really like to know. (Very trace amounts of sarcasm deposited in this response.)
lispm 13y ago
Sure not. The US standing military is for defending the US empire and has nothing to do with NATO. NATO's task was never to be a global police. That's a task some US politicians selected for the US. We've seen how that works.

RyJones 13y ago

How much oil did the US get out of the obvious oil grab?

Volpe 13y ago
"...Oil fields contracted include the "super-giant" Majnoon Field, Halfaya Field, West Qurna Field and Rumaila Field." [1] If you look up each of those fields, you'll see they are licensed to Shell, BP, and Exxon [2] [3] [4] [5] Given all of those companies have a strong presence in the US and definitely have lobbying power. I'd say the US got effective control over one of the largest oil reserves in the world. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_reserves_in_Iraq http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_reserves_in_Iraq [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halfaya_Field http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halfaya_Field [3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_Qurna_Field http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_Qurna_Field [4] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rumaila_Field http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rumaila_Field [5] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Majnoon_oil_field http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Majnoon_oil_field
- turar 13y ago
  Directly from the links you posted: - Halfaya: CNPC, Total SA, Petronas - West Qurna: ExxonMobil, Shell, Lukoil, Statoil, Eni SpA, CNPC, Petronas - Rumalia: BP, CNPC - Majnoon: Shell, Petronas Of all these, only ExxonMobil is an American company. Shell and BP are not American, regardless of the presence, unless you want to call Exxon a British or a Dutch company as well. But more importantly, all these contracts were awarded on a competitive basis, with a bidding process. Especially telling is an entry for Rumalia field: "ExxonMobil which also bid on servicing this field at a price $4.80 walked away due to price cutting terms by the Iraqi Government leaving BP and CNPC as winners of the contract.".
  - Volpe 13y ago
    You don't have to be an American company to benefit from American policy. And I'm sure congressmen benefit from the "non-american" oil companies. The question I would like to know the answer to, is who was drilling the oil before the war... it seems unclear, but if it was Iraq (national companies) then the war was defiantly an oil grab.

JoachimS 13y ago

I'd love to hear some statements from the Norwegian Peace Prize Committee, who in a fit of Obama euphoria gave him the prize during his first presidency.

deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
brg 13y ago
In my estimation, the award was not given in a fit of Obama euphoria as much as it was awarded in celebration of the removal of George Bush. I have heard it claimed that the committee's choice of Carter and Gore as recipients were more criticism of Bush than they were in response to those efforts, but I do not believe that argument holds. Many of the recipients from the first eight years of this century were very much deserving. http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/laureates/ http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/laureates/

DavideNL 13y ago

I'm half Dutch/German and i fully agree with the view of the author and the article. However, i believe one important piece of information is missing from most articles i read about this topic; Obviously it is much harder to create/restore something than it is to break something. In my opinion Bush made a big mess and Obama is doing a great job turning the whole thing around and leading the Americans in the right direction. There is only so much one person can do, and besides that, change should always happen slowly to prevent instability. We forget that the reason all of this was possible in the first place are obviously the American people itself; For example why on earth did they vote for George Bush the second time... From my point of view, the Americans have some kind of unrational fear of terrorists and choose to give up all privacy because they believed it would give them more security. Instead, it gave them another terrorist: the NSA. Hopefully they will learn from their mistakes and continue in the right direction. I believe Obama started of good and hope he will continue to do so.

flyinRyan 13y ago
Do you somehow not realize that most of these policies (e.g. NSA) were expanded by Obama? Are you really so enraptured by a deep film voice? Name 5 positive things Obama did that "continue in the right direction".