Do tyrants fear America anymore?

Great question.

Add to that should we care if they don't? My answer would be yes.

This is what is being said in the UK on this subject.

source

The débacle of Washington’s handling of the Libya issue is symbolic of a wider problem at the heart of the Obama administration’s foreign policy. The fact that it took ten days and at least a thousand dead on the streets of Libya’s cities before President Obama finally mustered the courage to call for Muammar “mad dog” Gaddafi to step down is highly embarrassing for the world’s only superpower, and emblematic of a deer-in-the-headlights approach to world leadership. Washington seems incapable of decisive decision-making on foreign policy at the moment, a far cry from the days when it swept entire regimes from power, and defeated America’s enemies with deep-seated conviction and an unshakeable drive for victory.

Just a few years ago the United States was genuinely feared on the world stage, and dictatorial regimes, strategic adversaries and state sponsors of terror trod carefully in the face of the world’s most powerful nation. Now Washington appears weak, rudderless and frequently confused in its approach. From Tehran to Tripoli, the Obama administration has been pathetically slow to lead, and afraid to condemn acts of state-sponsored repression and violence.

So, what good does it do the U.S. to be a (or the only) super power, if we are now afraid to use that power when and where it is sorely needed?

I think if Obama threaten any tyrant with bombing them back to the stone age, but why would he want to do that?sometimes things require a little more diplomacy than "shock and awe"

I think Americas idea of justice is slightly warped. If terrorists and countries controlled by dictators are the cancer then America is chemotherapy! Sometimes the cure is just as bad as the desease! Sometimes more so...
America needs to chill out and relax and become more insular instead of getting itself embroiled in other countries problems...

reply to post by centurion1211


A case of people in glass houses shouldn't throw stones. When I heard the cries from the US about the leadership in Libya being brought up in front of the ICC for human rights violations, well it was tragically hypocritical considering the US is afraid to join for fear of being hauled up itself for the very same thing. In a world where it's becoming harder to keep secrets, and when you too are guilty of the crimes you accuse others of, you sort of lose any political leverage you might have had, or at least the people are not so blind to that hypocrisy and have less to fear. There is no more moral superiority to bash tyrants with.

Originally posted by woodwardjnr
I think if Obama threaten any tyrant with bombing them back to the stone age, but why would he want to do that?sometimes things require a little more diplomacy than "shock and awe"

edit on 28-2-2011 by woodwardjnr because: (no reason given)

So, do you think obama has a "casualty limit" that has to be reached before he actually starts using diplomacy?

IMO, several thousand dead, plus air strikes being used on protesters might trigger at least some sort of response.

Originally posted by centurion1211
Great question.
Add to that should we care if they don't? My answer would be yes.
This is what is being said in the UK on this subject.

Given the fact that America itself has a well-documented history of supporting "dictatorial regimes...and state sponsors of terror", I find this whole discussion rather curious.

reply to post by centurion1211

So, what good does it do the U.S. to be a (or the only) super power, if we are now afraid to use that power when and where it is sorely needed?

It motivates the citizenry to vote the " right " way next time, and ensure that no weak minded, empty suit steps in the oval office ever again, thus eradicating the liberal agenda.

reply to post by centurion1211


An American response could play into the hands of Gadaffi and Islamist alike. As soon as America jumps in it will be spun by the Islamists and Gadaffi as another invaision of a ME country.

I like to think he (Obama) is being a lot more prudent than his predecessor and not automatically kicking down other nations' doors in reckless aggression.

Of course, when a "tyrant" truly affects where the US (economic) interests' lie, you best believe he or any president would take action.

I am sure there are tyrants who are afraid of the US, just as i am sure there are some who aren't, and others who hope to see the US meddling in an increasing number affairs which it can't control.

Action where action is due, not action where action is easiest.

ETA: It seems that the US has been the bully on the block for so long, and since that is the only way it thought it could "influence" nations for so long, that it might be befuddled on appropriate action that is not aggressive. Perhaps that's why it seem so..."weak and rudderless?"

Originally posted by Whereweheaded
reply to post by centurion1211

 

So, what good does it do the U.S. to be a (or the only) super power, if we are now afraid to use that power when and where it is sorely needed?

It motivates the citizenry to vote the " right " way next time, and ensure that no weak minded, empty suit steps in the oval office ever again, thus eradicating the liberal agenda.

Lord knows, with your brisk economy, you could use another war. How come big government is suddenly redeemed if it goes out and stomps on brown people? I'd hold back on some of that aggression and concentrate instead on rebuilding at home before you blow up and rebuild somebody else, eh?

Excuse me?

America never met a tyrant they didn't like.

They are soooo much easier to deal with than a democratic system that subjects everything to public scrutiny. One-stop shopping.

The only tyrants America doesn't like are the ones who rock the boat through getting too uppity, too greedy, or too publicly violent.

This article points out some excellent views. Yes, it a BLOG and only one persons point of view but where is this much needed critical eye anywhere else?

Recommend reading the WHOLE article and not just posting a response to the title...

S&F

Great Find,

t

reply to post by JohnnyCanuck


I totally agree. i didnt say anything about going to war with another peoples? Grasping for straws much? I think the US needs to shut downs it borders, ( and that goes for you canucks too ) and start rebuilding and taking care of our own~

Originally posted by Whereweheaded
reply to post by JohnnyCanuck

 

I totally agree. i didnt say anything about going to war with another peoples? Grasping for straws much? I think the US needs to shut downs it borders, ( and that goes for you canucks too ) and start rebuilding and taking care of our own~

I know...we're such a threat. Close that border, though...it also includes our beer!

Considering that most were trained by C(aught) I(n the) A(ct) or at the school of the americas.. Doubt it.. Unless like old noriega, saddam, mubarak and others who decide they dont want to be puppets anymore... Then they might be bit worried over saving their arses..

reply to post by Expat888

This is being discussed along these lines probably doesn't deserve its own thread:
Brits evacuated their citizens with an RAF c-130

Uncle Urkel chartered a civillian ferry ( which was so small it had to wait 3 days for calmer seas to cross.Don't want to show any u.s. force after all that bowing and appologizing.

Quote:

...After days of silence, Obama finally went on television to deplore the violence and to promise that his beloved "international community" would begin debating responses, but he timidly would not even name the source of that violence -- Col. Gaddafi. The President's rhetoric tiptoed along a tightrope stretched between restraint and gutless appeasement, as if not offending a terrorist murderer was his first priority.

All the week, I kept asking myself: Where in God's name is the U.S. Navy? Is the Navy's Sixth Fleet not deployed in the Mediterranean with ships and aircraft available to rescue trapped Americans in Libya? Why not use it? In my mind's eye, I envisioned a daring nighttime rescue by U.S. Navy Seals, dropping into the embassy compound via helicopters and pulling U.S. officials and American citizens to safety.

But no. Instead, the Obama Administration's response was to hire a commercial ferry from Malta. The Maltese Ferry was no falcon (apologies to Humphrey Bogart), swooping in to swiftly fly our endangered Americans to safety. Once it reached Tripoli harbor, it sat there for three days because the seas were too rough for it to sail. (I bet an American destroyer would not have delayed sailing because of weather.) So once our embattled Americans escaped from our unsafe embassy, they had to endure three days on a ferryboat unsuited to the venture -- all the while wondering if or when Gaddafi's planes or tanks might blow it and them out of the water.

The story ended happily when the ferry finally docked in Malta on Saturday, but that was thanks to pure luck rather than to our government's ability to manage crisis. It was left to the British to give us a lesson in bold action. Under Obama's leadership, America has become expert at apologizing, temporizing and speaking in mealy-mouthed, multicultural ambivalence, while remaining unwilling to act boldly or speak clearly as if it were still a leader of the free world.

Gaddafi may fall, not because the United Nations imposes sanctions, and not because President Obama has given hope to those yearning to be free, but because the people of Libya will risk torture and death to topple him. Theirs is the admirable patriotism of honor. Ours is the embarrassment of dithering in the crisis, and watching -- with poignant memory of past leaders like Roosevelt, Truman, Eisenhower and Reagan who knew when to speak clearly and act boldly -- while the Brits show grit and guts reminiscent of Churchill.

source

Well I'm formally embarrassed
("UHM did I doooo thaaaaaat?")



www.politicalforum.com...

Why would you want your country to be feared. How much propaganda have we been listening to and buying into over the 65 years?

First off it was the soviets. They were the bogey men to be feared from our end, yet the soviets were feeding the same line to their people.

Then it was communism in general. You know the capitalists do not like Communism, because they said it brought about lack of freedom. Yet communists, did not like the way of the capatalists, because stinking rich people became even more stinking richer.

Now it is the turn of Islam and China. Capatilsts do not like Islam/China, because they cannot be controlled like western countries. Islam/China are suspicious of western ways and do not/will not wnat to become westernised.

Believe me, within the next ten years the liklihood is that our schools will be teaching mandarin in secondary schools.

reply to post by 46ACE

I think it is naive to point fingers in this business. Personally, I don't think this is organic so the question remains...who's pushing the buttons? Looks like even the Muslim Brotherhood was taken by surprise. So if this is part of a Chinese power play in Africa...do you really want your 'Uncle Urckle' ( a thinly veiled racist remark, IMHO) aiding in that process?

Yah...I'm real sure you'd give him a pass on that.

Originally posted by JohnnyCanuck

Originally posted by Whereweheaded
reply to post by centurion1211

 

So, what good does it do the U.S. to be a (or the only) super power, if we are now afraid to use that power when and where it is sorely needed?

It motivates the citizenry to vote the " right " way next time, and ensure that no weak minded, empty suit steps in the oval office ever again, thus eradicating the liberal agenda.

Lord knows, with your brisk economy, you could use another war. How come big government is suddenly redeemed if it goes out and stomps on brown people? I'd hold back on some of that aggression and concentrate instead on rebuilding at home before you blow up and rebuild somebody else, eh?

Sad excuse for a post IMO.

First, Neither I or the OP suggested more wars. I think the OP was more about getting and staying engaged in all the issues instead of appearing to hang back and wait for a situation to either be decided on its own (after many deaths), or do nothing at all.

And last, you really had to play the race card in your post? Whatever for?

Originally posted by centurion1211

Originally posted by JohnnyCanuck

Originally posted by Whereweheaded
reply to post by centurion1211

 

So, what good does it do the U.S. to be a (or the only) super power, if we are now afraid to use that power when and where it is sorely needed?

It motivates the citizenry to vote the " right " way next time, and ensure that no weak minded, empty suit steps in the oval office ever again, thus eradicating the liberal agenda.

Lord knows, with your brisk economy, you could use another war. How come big government is suddenly redeemed if it goes out and stomps on brown people? I'd hold back on some of that aggression and concentrate instead on rebuilding at home before you blow up and rebuild somebody else, eh?

Sad excuse for a post IMO.

First, Neither I or the OP suggested more wars. I think the OP was more about getting and staying engaged in all the issues instead of appearing to hang back and wait for a situation to either be decided on its own (after many deaths), or do nothing at all.

And last, you really had to play the race card in your post? Whatever for?

You have a prudent waiting period assuming the facts aren't all in. You are assuming that inaction equates weakness. And the race card? My opinion...as stated. The election's been...another one coming up. Man up.

Meanwhile...how about addressing the point about the unknown quantity to the whole affair? There is more to this than your dislike for Obama. Really. Think past the party line.