• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Barack Obama: 'Work still to be done in Northern Ireland'[W:51]

We've are own problems, no need getting involved in another's Troubles...

That hardly answers the question. What did Obama do that was putting his nose into it so badly?
 
Because Northern Ireland's affairs are a British, if not a British-Irish, affair as far as I'm concerned.

The belief that the US government is the world's police reeks of arrogance and is used to condescendingly justify imposing US policies on other countries.

Would you accept allowing US domestic affairs to be decided by an outside government? Do you respect other countries's sovereignty?

And yet states seek a third party to help with these issues, which is what happened. Your impulse to consider this as an invasion of U.S. interests is overstated to say the least.
 
Because Northern Ireland's affairs are a British, if not a British-Irish, affair as far as I'm concerned.

The belief that the US government is the world's police reeks of arrogance and is used to condescendingly justify imposing US policies on other countries.

Would you accept allowing US domestic affairs to be decided by an outside government? Do you respect other countries's sovereignty?

Now Obama is "deciding" your domestic affairs? Please back this up.
 
Now Obama is "deciding" your domestic affairs? Please back this up.

What are you referring to?

He's justified in deciding domestic because he's president of the US but that shouldn't extend to other countries' domestic affairs.
 
That hardly answers the question. What did Obama do that was putting his nose into it so badly?

Well, your original question added additional emphasis where I didn't place any. So I answered the question in what I could have only imagined you intended it had you simply responded and inquired to what I wrote as I had written it. So badly? That was your addition, I said he was putting his nose in business where it doesn't belong.
 
What are you referring to?

He's justified in deciding domestic because he's president of the US but that shouldn't extend to other countries' domestic affairs.

I'm not asking why he's "justified" or not. You are plainly claiming that he actually and already DID stick his nose into that business and interfered jwith it. The question is, what did he do?
 
And yet states seek a third party to help with these issues, which is what happened. Your impulse to consider this as an invasion of U.S. interests is overstated to say the least.

It reeks of arrogance for one government to assume it has, or should have, any authority in another country's affairs.

The US government's involvement in the Israeli-Palestinian issue and the hypocrisy of scrutinizing the possible nuclear weaponry of Iran & North Korea are two reasons for why there's so much worldwide anti-US sentiment.
 
It reeks of arrogance for one government to assume it has, or should have, any authority in another country's affairs.

When did Obama assume he has, or should have, any authority in the affairs in this matter? What did he do or say that shows this?

Samira said:
The US government's involvement in the Israeli-Palestinian issue and the hypocrisy of scrutinizing the possible nuclear weaponry of Iran & North Korea are two reasons for why there's so much worldwide anti-US sentiment.

Agreed. But the comparison to what he's doing in Ireland is not a comparison at all.
 
It reeks of arrogance for one government to assume it has, or should have, any authority in another country's affairs.

The US government's involvement in the Israeli-Palestinian issue and the hypocrisy of scrutinizing the possible nuclear weaponry of Iran & North Korea are two reasons for why there's so much worldwide anti-US sentiment.

How did the United States come out looking bad in the peace?
 
I'm not asking why he's "justified" or not. You are plainly claiming that he actually and already DID stick his nose into that business and interfered jwith it. The question is, what did he do?

He is sticking his nose in this affair by allowing the US government to be a so-called "partner" and commenting as if the US government has some justification for being there when, instead, he and every other interfering US politician should back off and let the British settle the issue.
 
How did the United States come out looking bad in the peace?

Is sending billions of dollars in financial and military assistance to the Israel govt and politically supporting the Israeli govt on nearly everything not something that would enrage many Muslims and pro-Palestinian people worldwide? Is that your idea of "peace"?

Does peace include the US government maintaining a massive arsenal of nuclear weapons while demanding that other governments not develop any?
 
He is sticking his nose in this affair by allowing the US government to be a so-called "partner" and commenting as if the US government has some justification for being there when, instead, he and every other interfering US politician should back off and let the British settle the issue.

The United States was a valued partner of peace by the perceptions of both the Northern Irish and the British governments.
 
Is sending billions of dollars in financial and military assistance to the Israel govt and politically supporting the Israeli govt on nearly everything not something that would enrage many Muslims and pro-Palestinian people worldwide? Is that your idea of "peace"?

Does peace include the US government maintaining a massive arsenal of nuclear weapons while demanding that other governments not develop any?

I was not talking about the middle east, and even then, Carter was seen as a valuable partner in the talks. Now, back to Ireland.
 
Well, your original question added additional emphasis where I didn't place any. So I answered the question in what I could have only imagined you intended it had you simply responded and inquired to what I wrote as I had written it. So badly? That was your addition, I said he was putting his nose in business where it doesn't belong.

And I'm simply asking you to show what he did. Prove that he put his nose in business where it doesn't belong. Why are you guys throwing such big confident stones while dodging this simple pebble of a question?
 
Last edited:
The United States was a valued partner of peace by the perceptions of both the Northern Irish and the British governments.

And yet the Northern Irish and the British couldn't settle this on their own?

It seems condescending to believe that somehow the US should intervene in other countries when most could handle their own domestic affairs by themselves.
 
He is sticking his nose in this affair by allowing the US government to be a so-called "partner" and commenting as if the US government has some justification for being there when, instead, he and every other interfering US politician should back off and let the British settle the issue.

I guess my simple question will just continue to go unanswered while you guys just continue to throw the accusation and not back it up with any evidence.
 
And yet the Northern Irish and the British couldn't settle this on their own?

It seems condescending to believe that somehow the US should intervene in other countries when most could handle their own domestic affairs by themselves.

Okay, let's get to the basics. In international negotiations, there are frequently, many different countries that attempt to help facilitate talks between disputing nations. The nations aren't forced to engage in these talks. They have to do so willingly. This is one instrument commonly used around the world to stabilize situations, and it is not just the United States that does this. An enormous number of nations do this. The United States, though frequently with interests in a given outcome, is still frequently seen by participating nations as a desired partner in facilitating a negotiation process between two or more parties.

This is not condescending. It is simple international diplomacy.
 
Okay, let's get to the basics. In international negotiations, there are frequently, many different countries that attempt to help facilitate talks between disputing nations. This is one instrument commonly used around the world to stabilize situations, and it is not just the United States that does this. An enormous number of nations do this. The United States, though frequently with interests in a given outcome, is still frequently seen by participating nations as a desired partner in facilitating a negotiation process between two or more parties.

This is not condescending. It is simple international diplomacy.

It don't care if other governments involve themselves in other government's affairs, I just see it as nothing more than arrogance and condescension for the US government to assume that somehow it must involve itself. It doesn't just stop there, it continues in the Middle East, Asia, Africa, etc.

Keep supporting a meddling foreign policy but don't be surprised if you witness so much worldwide anti-US sentiment.
 
It don't care if other governments involve themselves in other government's affairs, I just see it as nothing more than arrogance and condescension for the US government to assume that somehow it must involve itself. It doesn't just stop there, it continues in the Middle East, Asia, Africa, etc.

Keep supporting a meddling foreign policy but don't be surprised if you witness so much worldwide anti-US sentiment.

How is it arrogance if the United States is constantly seen as a needed party for diplomatic talks among a number of international disputes? All you're saying is that even if these people want another party to oversee the process to let them settle their differences you see it as arrogance. It's not. It's diplomacy. If you have a problem with that, then I hate to say this, you have absolutely no idea what you're going on about.
 
I'm inclined to think he should do more about the national debt and be less concerned about Ireland. I know I am.

The national debt is not a problem; its deficits and the economy that are the problem. Fix the economy you go a long way to fixing the deficits. Fix the deficits and the debt will quickly be quite manageable.
 
Religious divide driving people to violence? This looks like a job for Atheism-man!
 
And I'm simply asking you to show what he did. Prove that he put his nose in business where it doesn't belong. Why are you guys throwing such big confident stones while dodging this simple pebble of a question?

No, you've now changed the question. If you read the link you'll find the anwser you're looking for. I'm not dodging anything I'm just not gonna be bullied into answering a question about a statement I did not make.

To answer an unasked question, Clinton should have minded his own business too.
 
Is sending billions of dollars in financial and military assistance to the Israel govt and politically supporting the Israeli govt on nearly everything not something that would enrage many Muslims and pro-Palestinian people worldwide? Is that your idea of "peace"?

Does peace include the US government maintaining a massive arsenal of nuclear weapons while demanding that other governments not develop any?

If you don't mind me asking, are you Muslim?

And a second question: who are these world-wide ~"US haters, justified in their hate" that you speak of?
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom