Sunday, March 28, 2010

Obama: Broken promises and diplomatic incompotence

The shifting sands of international relations tend to see relationships defined by convenience and various short-to-medium term mutual objectives. Commerce, trade, defense, technology, mutual enemies, and even shameless posturing on issues such as human rights tend to define short term and mutually agreeable objectives that drive the relations between countries both positively and adversely.  During the Second World War, the United States and Britain shared a bed with the evil Stalin led Soviets to defeat the Nazis. In the 1970s the United States threw some tacit support the way of Red China to undermine the Soviet credibility and cause fissures within the global communist community. The apartheid regime in South Africa shamelessly threw their struggling allies in Ian Smith's Rhodesian regime under the bus, to get the west off their backs on a short-term basis. The fractious behavior of the French and vaginal attitudes of the Europeans in general display how weak the essence of the NATO alliance really is, especially in a post Warsaw-Pact and Soviet era. In the end, like a healthy and successful marriage, finding a truly dependable international relationship that transcends the short-term interests of convenience that normally define global diplomacy, is something sacred that should be be nurtured and cherished. 

There was this great myth pimped during 2008 election that America had a damaged reputation in the world on account of President Bush's robust diplomatic efforts. Certainly, segments of the retrogressive anachronistic European establishment and America's enemies have played this myth up, as their reflexive anti-Americanism would predict. Whatever your thoughts on that may be, and the werewolf treats such claims with skepticism, it is becoming tragically obvious that Obama has become more poisonous for America's international and diplomatic standing, then the previous occupant of the White House could ever hope to have been.

According to the Times of London:
"BRITAIN’S special relationship with the US — forged by Winston Churchill and Franklin Roosevelt in the second world war — no longer exists, says a committee of influential MPs."

The article goes to talk about key domestic pressures and a mild backlash to Tony Blair's stewardship of Britain, yet it is no secret that the Obama administration has displayed a shocking ignorance, retardation, and frankly pathetic sense of tact when dealing with America's closest ally and spiritual forefather. Between returning the bust of Churchill, refusing to hold a joint meeting of state, giving the Queen of bunch of DVDs coded for American electronics along with an iPod loaded with Obama's speeches (vain fucker), and rhetorically undermining the sacred relationship at every corner from dealing to Argentina to speaking about the nature of the relationship itself. The American people are bearing witness to the deliberate and intentional disintegration of one of the greatest historical legacies diplomacy ever known. The severe costs are obvious, yet, the benefits this are completely lost on the werewolf. Like being estranged from your closest family and friends, it saddens him to realize that America be cast adrift from the only relationship that potentially transcended the bullshit of normal inter-state relations to fill the myopic left-wing ignorance of the current POTUS. (Canada, Australia, and New Zealand also fit in this mold, but they are lesser players.) Although not without itself nuances and challenges; few things can beat a common language, legal heritage, diplomatic and historical ties forged in the heat of the greatest wars ever fought, along with key cultural compatibilities make the USA-UK something worth preserving and fighting for.

If someone can explain the contrasting upside to squandering this other than to please ignoramuses of the left, please make the case. 


  1. One unspoken reason for the decline of the 'special relationship' between the UK and the US is the demographic and cultural change currently being imposed on the US, rendering the US less an Anglo-European (Western) country with each passing year. Then again, the same transformation is being imposed on the UK, though perhaps not to the same extent or with the same hostile intensity.

  2. A curious comment. Is the "demographic and cultural change" being "imposed" by immigrants from hostile powers like Mexico and Central America?

    But those countries are both Western and European in culture, which presumably Laguna Beach (or is it "Laguna Playa"? Or "Lagoon Beach"?) knows. Perhaps it's all those Asians who come over here, open small businesses, send their kids to the UC system, vote Republican, marry white people, and tend to be Christian? Quite the chilling specter for Western Civilization...

    No, the US and UK are both becoming brown, but only a racist would have a problem with that. Laguna Beach has it backward. If there's a significant demographic difference, it's that the UK -- unlike the US -- is becoming Muslim, and, to that extent, less "Western" in the way the word is historically used (though of course Russian immigration would have the same effect). I doubt Muslim immigration would be a problem in itself, but for the fact that the Muslim world is currently undergoing a horrendous internecine war -- which of course puts the population of the UK on the front lines the real "culture war."

    Anyway, all this demography aside, the real difference between the US and UK is that the UK have already taken the plunge away from liberalism and toward socialism, with the US now starting -- haltingly -- to follow suit. Though I doubt that's what's motivating Obama's peculiar nuttiness on this issue.

  3. And by "both countries" I meant "all," since last time I checked "Central America" wasn't a country. Geography fail.

  4. Only a racist would deny that people are not interchangeable. Only a racist would assume that human beings are a 'one size fits all' species. No. Change the people, change the culture. Replace the population, and policy priorities shift. Given the nature of the managerial elite now running the show in the US today, as opposed to 50 years ago, is it any wonder that a country such as (to take a completely random example) Israel, assumes much greater importance for US foreign policy than Britain? Blood matters. Liberals on both the left and the right are a funny, hypocritical breed: they relentlessly promote diversity, but then refuse to discuss its implications.

  5. "Blood matters" -- now there's a fun bumper sticker!

    Speaking for myself, I generally prefer the company of my spouse and friends to my extended family ... most of the time.
    But that's the beauty of our liberal society: you don't have to.