• 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!

America's 'Bermuda solution' angers Britain

Renae

Renae

Banned
Suspended
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 26, 2007
Messages
50,241
Reaction score
19,243
Location
San Antonio Texas
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Conservative
Senior aides to President Barack Obama accompanied four Uighur prisoners as they were flown from Guantanamo Bay to the British colony of Bermuda, without the UK being informed, it was revealed yesterday.

In an escalating diplomatic row over the transfer of the former terrorist suspects, US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton discussed the transfer with British Foreign Secretary David Miliband in what was said to be an uneasy conversation. Privately Whitehall officials accused America of treating Britain, with whom it is supposed to have a "special relationship", with barely disguised contempt.

One senior official said: "The Americans were fully aware of the foreign-policy understanding we have with Bermuda and they deliberately chose to ignore it. This is not the kind of behaviour one expects from an ally."
Click to expand...
America's 'Bermuda solution' angers Britain - Americas, World - The Independent

Let's see...

Bush was slammed for "Angering" all our allies with his "My way or the highway" talk.

Obama get's praised for "reaching out" to our enemies... while pissing all over our allies.

Gotta love it.
 
Gibberish said:
I hope this fascination to attack any and all things Obama isn't one of those "he hits you because he likes you".
Click to expand...
He's not attacking Dear Leader (much). It's much more a criticism of his fawning followers who betray a disgusting double standard by not calling him on the hypocrisy of his actions.

One does not repair broken relationships by sliding a fresh knife between the ribs.
 
celticlord said:
He's not attacking Dear Leader (much). It's much more a criticism of his fawning followers who betray a disgusting double standard by not calling him on the hypocrisy of his actions.

One does not repair broken relationships by sliding a fresh knife between the ribs.
Click to expand...

Yet the fact that you all make consistent on hit posts attacking Obama and so called "fawning followers" but in the past attacked people that did this same thing to Bush isn't hypocritical?

Why not start an actual debate on policy and decisions and what Obama should have done that he didn't? I have tried now, unsuccessfully, three times to get American and MrVicchio's to extend their posts past "Obama sucks" and actually have a discussion on what they feel Obama did wrong and what he should have done instead. It leaves me to believe you actually don't want to discuss anything but just make pointless attacks.
 
Last edited:
Gibberish said:
I hope this fascination to attack and exaggerate any and all things Obama isn't one of those "he hits you because he likes you". You can admit it if it is. We won't judge. ;)
Click to expand...

Hey, Obama has three times now treated the UK like ****. It's no longer a trend, it's a way of business. You guys want to focus on my "attacking" the Big O, well... then that's your problem and shows the rest of the posters what concerns you more. Not policy, but image.
 
MrVicchio said:
Hey, Obama has three times now treated the UK like ****. It's no longer a trend, it's a way of business. You guys want to focus on my "attacking" the Big O, well... then that's your problem and shows the rest of the posters what concerns you more. Not policy, but image.
Click to expand...

And if Obama did nothing but appease the UK you would attack him for pandering to other nations. What exactly could Obama have done that you would approve of other then leave office?
 
MrVicchio said:
Hey, Obama has three times now treated the UK like ****. It's no longer a trend, it's a way of business. You guys want to focus on my "attacking" the Big O, well... then that's your problem and shows the rest of the posters what concerns you more. Not policy, but image.
Click to expand...

3 times?

Yes this is a snub against the UK, but it is also part of a somewhat consistent with US policy for the last 5+ decades.
 
Gibberish said:
Yet the fact that you all make consistent on hit posts attacking Obama and so called "fawning followers" but in the past attacked people that did this same thing to Bush isn't hypocritical?
Click to expand...
No it is not.

I'll keep it simple for you: if it was so wrong under Bush (thus the justifications for his continued vilification), it should be wrong under Dear Leader. The silence of Dear Leader's disciples regarding Dear Leader perpetuating those aspects of the Bush Administration most publicly reviled and pledged by Dear Leader to undo is a fair question.

If Dear Leader's aura is all it takes to make the wrong things right, then Dear Leader's disciples can just stop pretending there is no cult of personality surrounding Dear Leader.

The facts are unequivocal in this regard: Dear Leader has not stopped renditions, has not pledged to end indefinite detention without trial, has not stopped the military tribunals, and has pledged only to close Gitmo and CIA "black" prisons while leaving Bagram Air Base open for business; Dear Leader has not kept his pledge to draw down troops in Iraq, and will keep a large contingent of forces there into the foreseeable future; everything that earned President Bush the opprobrium of the left, Dear Leader does with impunity.

You seriously believe there is not a valid question to debate in this?

Gibberish said:
Why not start an actual debate on policy and decisions and what Obama should have done that he didn't? I have tried now, unsuccessfully, three times to get American and MrVicchio's to extend their posts past "Obama sucks" and actually have a discussion on what they feel Obama did wrong and what he should have done instead. It leaves me to believe you actually don't want to discuss anything but just make pointless attacks.
Click to expand...

Well, for starters, ignoring Great Britain's relationship with Bermuda and generally dismissing allies like Great Britain while kow-towing to the likes of Chavez and Ahamenijad is a pretty stupid foreign policy. Why make a show of releasing the Uighers at all? Why not just walk the policy back from the stupidity of promising to close Gitmo? Why not just acknowledge that maybe the Bush Administration was not the completely evil and malevolent force the left wishes it were? Why rely on a strategy of "blame Bush" six months into his own Presidency?

It pains me to have to agree with Bill Maher about anything (he's such a demented little turd), but he is spot on in his assessment of Dear Leader:

the "Audacity of Hope" part is over. Right now, I'm hoping for a little more audacity.
Click to expand...
The biggest defect in Dear Leader's policies is his conspicuous absence in them.
 
WillRockwell said:
They are "former terrorist suspects" because they were judged to be innocent...by the Bush administration. What is your problem with releasing innocent people?
Click to expand...
Nothing....but doing so in a way that steps on a long-time ally's toes is bad diplomacy all around. (You know, all that touchy feely stuff that Dear Leader is supposed to be way better at than President Bush?)

It must suck for liberals to acknowledge that President Bush was more caring about the concerns of other nations than Dear Leader. Kinda throws that whole "Bush is bad" mantra right out the window, doesn't it?
 
WillRockwell said:
They are "former terrorist suspects" because they were judged to be innocent...by the Bush administration. What is your problem with releasing innocent people?
Click to expand...

You really never read what the link is about do you? Just react based on feelings.

I'm not the one upset about O's actions... the UK is ticked off.

But you'd have to ya know.. read to get that part.
 
MrVicchio said:
You really never read what the link is about do you? Just react based on feelings.

I'm not the one upset about O's actions... the UK is ticked off.

But you'd have to ya know.. read to get that part.
Click to expand...

Do you work at being dense or does it just come natural? You do remember writing this, don't you?

Obama get's praised for "reaching out" to our enemies... while pissing all over our allies.

Gotta love it.
Click to expand...

Please explain how releasing four innocent detainees constitutes "pissing all over our allies"?
 
MrVicchio said:
America's 'Bermuda solution' angers Britain - Americas, World - The Independent

Let's see...

Bush was slammed for "Angering" all our allies with his "My way or the highway" talk.

Obama get's praised for "reaching out" to our enemies... while pissing all over our allies.

Gotta love it.
Click to expand...

You do not think that overall, President Obama's foreign policy is doing better than President Bush's. I understand that you and a few other rabid right types will focus on every negative and ignore every positive, but overall, Obama has done fairly well in foreign policy.

Let's look at this week. He handled the election in Iran properly, taking a wait and see, to find out who actually won. Netanyahu also said he was willing to support a two state solution, giving in to pressure from Obama some. And he annoyed Britain a tad. Overall, how would you grade this week?
 
Redress said:
You do not think that overall, President Obama's foreign policy is doing better than President Bush's. I understand that you and a few other rabid right types will focus on every negative and ignore every positive, but overall, Obama has done fairly well in foreign policy.
Click to expand...
Overall, he's been a dismal failure. Apologies are not the way to diplomatic success. Appeasements don't work either.

Redress said:
Let's look at this week. He handled the election in Iran properly, taking a wait and see, to find out who actually won. Netanyahu also said he was willing to support a two state solution, giving in to pressure from Obama some. And he annoyed Britain a tad. Overall, how would you grade this week?
Click to expand...
That's hardly a major policy shift for Netanyahu. Netanyahu's primary stance on the Palestinian question has always been summed up in two words: "defensible borders"; he is vehemently opposed to having a declared enemy of Israel permanently established on the West Bank.

On the Iran bit--that's hardly a challenge. What else could he say?

And you wish to use those "successes" to offset willfully irritating a longtime ally......yeah, that really doesn't work out, does it? Kudos for finding homes for four Uighers, but major deductions for the artlessness of the solution (releasing them just isn't that much of a diplomatic imperative that one has to go around tweaking our friends' noses).

Grade for the week? D+
 
Gibberish said:
Yet the fact that you all make consistent on hit posts attacking Obama and so called "fawning followers" but in the past attacked people that did this same thing to Bush isn't hypocritical?
Click to expand...

So you're not denying that you're giving The Messiah a free pass after having attacked The Liberal Bush for doing exactly the same things?
 
Gibberish said:
And if Obama did nothing but appease the UK you would attack him for pandering to other nations. What exactly could Obama have done that you would approve of other then leave office?
Click to expand...

Leaving office is a good start.

Then he can go back to his homeland in Kenya.
 
WillRockwell said:
They are "former terrorist suspects" because they were judged to be innocent...by the Bush administration. What is your problem with releasing innocent people?
Click to expand...

If they're "innocent" as claimed, why were they not released either in the United States directly or given the opportunity to depart to the land of their free choosing?

What's wrong with your Messiah?
 
celticlord said:
Overall, he's been a dismal failure. Apologies are not the way to diplomatic success. Appeasements don't work either.
Click to expand...

Nice exagerations


That's hardly a major policy shift for Netanyahu. Netanyahu's primary stance on the Palestinian question has always been summed up in two words: "defensible borders"; he is vehemently opposed to having a declared enemy of Israel permanently established on the West Bank.
Click to expand...

It is a shift. It is the first time(or so the couple articles I saw both claim, I am not an expert) he has endorsed two state.

On the Iran bit--that's hardly a challenge. What else could he say?
Click to expand...

Axis of evil? Jumped onto one side or the other on the election? There were definite bad options there, he did not take them.

And you wish to use those "successes" to offset willfully irritating a longtime ally......yeah, that really doesn't work out, does it? Kudos for finding homes for four Uighers, but major deductions for the artlessness of the solution (releasing them just isn't that much of a diplomatic imperative that one has to go around tweaking our friends' noses).

Grade for the week? D+
Click to expand...

You greatly exaggerate the negative reaction to this. I doubt it will have any real effect on our relationship with Britain.
 
WillRockwell said:
Please explain how releasing four innocent detainees constitutes "pissing all over our allies"?
Click to expand...

You mean outside of not informing our alleged "ally" that they're being sent to their island? And they can't be too innocent, given the fact that the UK is steamed over the incident.
 
This raises the prospect of them getting British citizenship and right to travel (and technically settle) in the UK.
Click to expand...

**** no.
We're deporting them to US and they can live there, i'm sure we can find them a patch of land to inhabit
 
Last edited:
Redress said:
Nice exagerations
Click to expand...

What part?

"dismal failure" is spot on.

He's a pro at apologizing.

And appeasement doesn't work.

So where's the exaggeration?

Redress said:
You greatly exaggerate the negative reaction to this. I doubt it will have any real effect on our relationship with Britain.
Click to expand...

Yes, Britain will continue to kiss our ass for the foreseeable future. This makes The Messiah's heavy-handed deportation of "innocents" morally justifiable in what way?
 
Redress said:
It is a shift. It is the first time(or so the couple articles I saw both claim, I am not an expert) he has endorsed two state.
Click to expand...
It is a slight shift, but it is hardly the tectonic move Dear Leader would like to pretend it is.

Israel has not been adamantly opposed to a Palestinian state since Oslo. Sharon gave the Palestinians the ultimate recognition by pulling out of the Gaza strip. 58% of the Israeli people support a Palestinian state; they just don't support Palestinians using that state to rain rockets on Israel.

Netanyahu's conditions attached to his support make one thing clear. He wants Israel secure--which has been his focus all along.

Only in the Middle East and in the minds of Palestinian apologists should a desire for security be construed as blatant hostility.

Redress said:
Axis of evil? Jumped onto one side or the other on the election? There were definite bad options there, he did not take them.
Click to expand...
How? He'd already extended the olive branch to Ahamenijad. If he backed Mousavi, he'd be interfering in an internal electoral issue and thus give everything Ahamenijad rails on against the US the ring of truth. If he backed Ahamenijad he'd be endorsing a highly suspicious and potentially rigged election that went against the will of the Iranian people--which would make his Cairo speech a lie from start to finish.

The axis of evil bit is non-sequitur in this particular discussion, especially since Mousavi was not likely to stop Iran's nuclear program.

Redress said:
You greatly exaggerate the negative reaction to this. I doubt it will have any real effect on our relationship with Britain.
Click to expand...

On its own, it won't have dramatic effect. However, a string of negligences and casual dismissals is on balance more devastating than a single slap in the face. Dear Leader's treatment of Great Britain has been hamhanded and clumsy from the get go, and the Bermuda solution merely furthers that string of mistakes.
 
​
Scarecrow Akhbar said:
You mean outside of not informing our alleged "ally" that they're being sent to their island? And they can't be too innocent, given the fact that the UK is steamed over the incident.
Click to expand...

As usual, you don't know WTF you're talking about:

Bermuda Premier Ewart Brown said the men will be allowed to live in Bermuda, a British territory in the Atlantic, initially as refugees. They would be permitted to pursue citizenship and would have the right to work, travel and ``potentially settle elsewhere.''
Click to expand...
Bermuda takes Uighur detainees - World - MiamiHerald.com
 
celticlord said:
It is a slight shift, but it is hardly the tectonic move Dear Leader would like to pretend it is.

Israel has not been adamantly opposed to a Palestinian state since Oslo. Sharon gave the Palestinians the ultimate recognition by pulling out of the Gaza strip. 58% of the Israeli people support a Palestinian state; they just don't support Palestinians using that state to rain rockets on Israel.

Netanyahu's conditions attached to his support make one thing clear. He wants Israel secure--which has been his focus all along.

Only in the Middle East and in the minds of Palestinian apologists should a desire for security be construed as blatant hostility.
Click to expand...

Just once, actually talk to what is said, and not expanding it into something completely different.

It is a shift, and it was in response to the work President Obama has done. No one claimed it was a huge shift, and to the best of my knowledge, Obama has not made any real comment on it. Your whole response there was desperate spin and building of straw men.


How? He'd already extended the olive branch to Ahamenijad. If he backed Mousavi, he'd be interfering in an internal electoral issue and thus give everything Ahamenijad rails on against the US the ring of truth. If he backed Ahamenijad he'd be endorsing a highly suspicious and potentially rigged election that went against the will of the Iranian people--which would make his Cairo speech a lie from start to finish.

The axis of evil bit is non-sequitur in this particular discussion, especially since Mousavi was not likely to stop Iran's nuclear program.
Click to expand...

Sometimes the right thing to do is nothing, and that is about what Obama has done. He did make clear that the correct result of the election is important, which should hopefully play well with the large number of people who voted over there.



On its own, it won't have dramatic effect. However, a string of negligences and casual dismissals is on balance more devastating than a single slap in the face. Dear Leader's treatment of Great Britain has been hamhanded and clumsy from the get go, and the Bermuda solution merely furthers that string of mistakes.
Click to expand...

You do love to exaggerate. Any evidence that Britain is less of an ally than it was when Obama took office?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom