Posted on 11/08/2010 7:49:00 PM PST by freespirited
I don’t think any sane person in India really cared about Obama’s PC speeches. Nobody expected him to say anything more than he said. His visit was just a process of going through the motions-nothing new happened. So I can’t understand why everyone out here seems so worked up.
So he insulted their intelligence and dignity by blathering about his support for something they don’t want a part of?
The UNSC permanent membership is an emotive issue in the G-4 countries and Nigeria for example. Using it is not such a bad idea-governments like to parrot their ‘success’ in pushing their case forward citing support from countries as diverse as Nauru to the US.
About the specifics, anyone who is familiar with the whole thing will tell you that nothing meaningful is expected to happen anytime soon.
You are saying that this visit meant nothing to India and we paid $200 mil a day for a play date? India must have spent quite a few rupees itself to accommodate The Won.
I’m afraid I don’t understand a thing you said in that post. (#23) You sure didn’t answer my question.
Deals which were in negotiation for a few years were signed, he and his wife visited a few places, danced around and attended two banquets.
Pretty much the routine of most bilateral visits.
Obama said what the Indian government wanted to hear. Or rather hoped to hear.
They know that the US is highly unlikely to push for genuine UNSC reform anytime soon. And even if it wanted, the Chinese would stand in the way.
Was that insulting people’s dignity and intelligence?? well yes. But then that’s what politicians do all the time.
Aside from the astronomical cost and the insults to all parties. Something I don't recall Clinton doing.
Japan and Germany are the 2nd and 3rd largest contributors to the UN. India and Brazil deserve a permanent seat. And there is no permanent representation from Africa. The current permanent five are unwilling to include any other countries as equals, which includes veto authority.
What on earth is an American President doing visiting a foreign state and lecturing school children on Islam? How does that advamce US interests?
“a million casualties”
PC talk for murders by Hindi and Muslims of each other
As Churchill warned.
I’m trying to decide what’s bigger, his stupidity or his ignorance.
No matter how hard the attempt to sanitize/cloak those responsible for terrorism worldwide, the world is now quite familiar with the terms jihad, fatwa, infidel, apostacy, kafir/kuffir, and takayya and the name of its ideology cause.
Veto power is the only differentiator here or it becomes a game of numbers. The US and most of the other P-5 members have at various times expressed guarded support for expansion involving the G-4 states. The only noticeable exception was China, which opposes Japan and is ambiguous on India.
Alas, our author, Mr. Filozof, is really not much better on that score.
Obama is not mouthing "PC sentiments." This sort of thing is his narcissism at work.
And it's not just Obama's ignorance. I always thought that visits to foreign nations, and statements a US president might make in foreign nations, were all planned and reviewed by experts in the cultures and histories of the nation being visited - so as to avoid such displays of ignorance.
But apparently not. All his nonsensical remarks about Islam seems to be nothing more than Ivy League political correctness and multicultural nonsense taken as if it were true.
China's annual contribution [2010] to the UN for regular operations is $67,434,617. Japan pays $264,959,467. Germany pays $169,548,684. Spain pays $67,180,865. Canada pays $67,815,245. The Russian Federation pays $33,875,903. What's wrong with this picture?
The U.S. has been the largest financial supporter of the U.N. since the organization’s founding in 1945. The U.S. is currently assessed 22 percent of the U.N. regular budget and more than 27 percent of the U.N. peacekeeping budget. In dollar terms, the Administration’s budget for FY 2011 requested $516.3 million for the U.N. regular budget and more than $2.182 billion for the peacekeeping budget.
However, the U.S. also provides assessed financial contributions to other U.N. organizations and voluntary contributions to many more U.N. organizations. According to OMB, total U.S. contributions to the U.N. system were more than $6.347 billion in FY 2009. This is more than $1 billion more than total contributions as compiled by OMB for FY 2005, and it is indicative of the rising budgetary trends in the U.N. and the consequential demand on U.S. financial support.
However, the U.S. also provides assessed financial contributions to other U.N. organizations and voluntary contributions to many more U.N. organizations. According to OMB, total U.S. contributions to the U.N. system were more than $6.347 billion in FY 2009. This is more than $1 billion more than total contributions as compiled by OMB for FY 2005, and it is indicative of the rising budgetary trends in the U.N. and the consequential demand on U.S. financial support.
vaudine
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.