Notices
Results 1 to 72 of 72
Like Tree5Likes
  • 1 Post By Dave Wilson
  • 1 Post By Strange
  • 1 Post By adelady
  • 1 Post By John Galt
  • 1 Post By adelady

Thread: Obama bowing to Royalty

  1. #1 Obama bowing to Royalty 
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,035
    I have to say, this is actually the reason I will vote against him.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/barackobama/6580190/Barack-Obama-criticised-for-treasonous-bow-to-Japanese-emperor.html

    http://www.wnd.com/2009/04/93696/




    One of the most ingrained and longstanding American traditions is that AMERICANS DO NOT BOW TO ROYALTY!!!! How did Obama not know this??? It was half of the purpose for the whole revolutionary war, to make all men equal (unfortunately not equality for women - yet, and only applied to white men at the time..... but at least it was a start.) The last thing any American should be caught dead doing is bowing to a king or emperor. Certainly not a president!!!


    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    17,036
    But in Japan everyone bows to everyone. It is like shaking hands (or kissing on both cheeks).


    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Northumbria UK
    Posts
    1,043
    That bow by Obama, may result in millions of dollars worth of trade.
    brody likes this.
    .
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    One of the most ingrained and longstanding American traditions is that AMERICANS DO NOT BOW TO ROYALTY!!!! How did Obama not know this???
    Why am I expected to stand up for the playing of the American national anthem at a sporting event, but tolerate an American not bowing to our Queen? We are talking about respect. If someone will not show respect my country by bowing to my Queen, why should I show respect to their country by standing for their anthem?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    52
    This is a reason not to vote for someone? :/

    Not their policy decisions but their showing deference?

    <Obelix>
    These Americans are crazy!
    </Obelix>
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    17,036
    I would say he is bowing too low (1) but that is a common mistake for foreigners. I have only seen little old ladies bow that low to each other!

    (1) especially as he is also shaking hands - I would go for one or the other, not both.
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Northumbria UK
    Posts
    1,043
    It is not the first time that Obama has broken US protocol, in April 2009 he bowed to a Saudi king.

    " In a shocking display of fealty to a foreign potentate, President Obama bowed to Saudi King Abdullah at the Group of 20 summit in London last week "

    EDITORIAL: Barack takes a bow - Washington Times
    .
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Northumbria UK
    Posts
    1,043
    I have just realised, that the link provided by Kojax, showing obama bowing is also from 2009.
    .
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Northumbria UK
    Posts
    1,043
    It gets better. President Nixon bowed to a Japanese Emperor.

    The Nixon bow - Ben Smith - POLITICO.com
    .
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    17,036
    Do you think the Japanese complained because the emperor shook hands with a foreign head of state?
    ClaimingLight likes this.
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    city of wine and roses
    Posts
    6,222
    There's one thing Obama is probably very aware of that you may not be. And if he wasn't, his advisers would have made him so.

    He is very, very tall when you compare him to the tiny Japanese royal couple and to the little-old-lady British queen. Diplomatically speaking, he has to ensure that at critical 'diplomatic greeting' moments he doesn't force them to look up at him. If he were average height, he'd be able to get away with just an inclination or a nod. As it is, he has to go the whole way.
    "Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen." Winston Churchill
    "nature is like a game of Jenga; you never know which brick you pull out will cause the whole stack to collapse" Lucy Cooke
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,035
    Quote Originally Posted by rustypup View Post
    This is a reason not to vote for someone? :/

    Not their policy decisions but their showing deference?

    <Obelix>
    These Americans are crazy!
    </Obelix>
    How a leader conducts diplomacy decides quite a lot about the economy.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dave Wilson View Post
    It gets better. President Nixon bowed to a Japanese Emperor.

    The Nixon bow - Ben Smith - POLITICO.com
    Now I'm even more glad he was later impeached.

    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    One of the most ingrained and longstanding American traditions is that AMERICANS DO NOT BOW TO ROYALTY!!!! How did Obama not know this???
    Why am I expected to stand up for the playing of the American national anthem at a sporting event, but tolerate an American not bowing to our Queen? We are talking about respect. If someone will not show respect my country by bowing to my Queen, why should I show respect to their country by standing for their anthem?
    I won't get mad if you don't stand. However, it is important for an American to show disdain toward royalty and royal titles whenever possible. I know England has managed to integrate monarchy and democracy into a single system, but it's still not an equal system if you can be born into a superior legal status on the basis of blood alone.

    It's just one of the ways our system is crumbling. If you're born black, then you've got claim on black heritage, and you get to feel sorry for yourself because a bunch of distant relatives you've never met had to be slaves 150 years ago. If you're born native American, you get to feel sorry for yourself because your people once owned all the land the rest of the Americans now live on. We're starting to value blood lines too much, and look at what a person actually does too little. Instead of meritocracy, America is degenerating into an entitlement-ocracy, and I guess I see deference to royal figures as just another nail in our coffin.
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Forum Isotope Bunbury's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    2,590
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    If you're born black, then you've got claim on black heritage, and you get to feel sorry for yourself because a bunch of distant relatives you've never met had to be slaves 150 years ago.
    No; if you're born black you get to have three times better chance of being born in poverty than if you're born white. This says there is an inbuilt level of inequality that needs to be addressed.

    We're starting to value blood lines too much, and look at what a person actually does too little.
    What a person actually does depends heavily on the circumstances of that person's birth and early life.

    Instead of meritocracy, America is degenerating into an entitlement-ocracy, and I guess I see deference to royal figures as just another nail in our coffin.
    Well, entitlement-ocracy is a nice empty word you made up and your linking it with Obama's politeness to foreign dignitaries shows a very muddled way of thinking. No wonder we are in trouble.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    [
    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt View Post
    Why am I expected to stand up for the playing of the American national anthem at a sporting event, but tolerate an American not bowing to our Queen? We are talking about respect. If someone will not show respect my country by bowing to my Queen, why should I show respect to their country by standing for their anthem?
    I won't get mad if you don't stand. However, it is important for an American to show disdain toward royalty and royal titles whenever possible. I know England has managed to integrate monarchy and democracy into a single system, but it's still not an equal system if you can be born into a superior legal status on the basis of blood alone.
    What superior legal status does the Queen enjoy? She works her butt off for the country and has done so for sixty years. Despite that ongoing, gracious and immensely hardworking effort she does not even have the right to vote. Any disrespect you show to the queen you are showing to my country and to me. So, with great sincerity, up yours Kojax.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    17,036
    And now I would like to welcome Arthur Angler to the stage to say a few words about the British Royal Family and their evil influence on world society....
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Northumbria UK
    Posts
    1,043
    Sadly, the Angler has been suspended.
    .
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    17,036
    Oh, I missed that. Why am I not surprised.
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    1,847
    However, it is important for an American to show disdain toward royalty and royal titles whenever possible.
    The approved way is to spit tobacco on their shoes. Obviously Obama has much to learn about being an American.

    I know England has managed to integrate monarchy and democracy into a single system, but it's still not an equal system if you can be born into a superior legal status on the basis of blood alone.
    For example, in some countries inherited income sources are taxed at rates less than half that of earned income - the children of the wealthy enjoy a 50% tax break for life, and can pass it along to their children as well.

    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    It's just one of the ways our system is crumbling. If you're born black, then you've got claim on black heritage, and you get to feel sorry for yourself because a bunch of distant relatives you've never met had to be slaves 150 years ago. If you're born native American, you get to feel sorry for yourself because your people once owned all the land the rest of the Americans now live on. We're starting to value blood lines too much, and look at what a person actually does too little.
    Unlike the American tradition, in which being born white has always meant you were just another white person, with no special privileges different from any other white person, which is the definition of everyone being equal. Is that the argument?

    When was it that Americans started paying attention to bloodlines in ways that caused white people mental anguish - was it when the bloodline segregation of schools was declared illegal? When landlords in Obama's younger days in Chicago were forced to occasionally rent to people of bloodlines they did not like? Or maybe we can think of even earlier - and later - American bloodline traditions.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    17,036
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    However, it is important for an American to show disdain toward royalty and royal titles whenever possible.
    Surely, it is important for decent people everywhere not to show disdain for anyone.
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,035
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    However, it is important for an American to show disdain toward royalty and royal titles whenever possible.
    Surely, it is important for decent people everywhere not to show disdain for anyone.
    You're right. Hate the title, not the person holding it. Show disdain for the title, but respect for the person. To do otherwise is to treat them as an inferior, when the real goal is to treat them as an equal (but not a superior).
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    17,036
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    You're right. Hate the title, not the person holding it. Show disdain for the title, but respect for the person.
    So you hate the president (or, more accurately, the presidency)? You would show distain for your head of state if you ever met him/her? And you wouldn't vote for someone to take that hateful position?
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,035
    Actually, showing dis-respect for the person is not a good way to show disdain for the office, because it convolutes the message.

    For royalty, it is best to be polite and cordial, but remain standing nonetheless and give the appearance of being totally oblivious to their regalia. For a president, it's a little bit more difficult, because there aren't a lot of formalities in place for you to disregard anyway. If you wanted to make a point, I suppose you could refer to him as "Mr" Obama, instead of "President Obama". However there's a good chance nobody would notice.
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    17,036
    But, clearly, you should refuse to vote for anything as offensive as a head of state.
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #24  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    1,847
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    If you wanted to make a point, I suppose you could refer to him as "Mr" Obama, instead of "President Obama". However there's a good chance nobody would notice.
    As that is a standard form of address - "Mr. President" when addressing the jobholder, "Mr. Obama" when addressing the man - I think you are correct that few would notice.

    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    Show disdain for the title, but respect for the person. To do otherwise is to treat them as an inferior, when the real goal is to treat them as an equal (but not a superior).
    My mistake, then: a real American would spit tobacco juice on their symbol of status, such as their crown or emblem or formal chair, rather than on their shoes.

    To show that they are his equal.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #25  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Northumbria UK
    Posts
    1,043
    I read somewhere, that real Americans only bow to the porcelain queen.
    .
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #26  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    1,847
    Regular Americans bow to no one. Being insecure, we need to assert our equality in the face of any threat however imaginary.

    The President bows to the figurehead symbols of the monarchies and such that America's example emptied of power: noblesse oblige.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #27  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    963
    Quote Originally Posted by Dave Wilson View Post
    Sadly, the Angler has been suspended.
    I find that almost impossible to accept!
    Will the forum ever recover?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #28  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    Actually, showing dis-respect for the person is not a good way to show disdain for the office, because it convolutes the message.

    For royalty, it is best to be polite and cordial, but remain standing nonetheless and give the appearance of being totally oblivious to their regalia.
    You are totally missing the point. In showing disrespect, even as mild as you now portray it, you are showing disrespect not to the Queen but to the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and to the Commonwealth. The Queen is a constitutional monarch. She is the figurehead of the countries and principalities making up the UK and of the nations and protectorates making up the Commonwealth. Your disrespect is disrespect to those entities. Now that's fine if you feel such disrespect, but otherwise it is wholly inappropriate.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #29  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,035
    How is that different from the way we treated Saddam Hussein, who's form of government we also objected to? If he had been a benevolent dictator instead of genocidal maniac, would we have owed respect to his title?

    Are we not allowed to object to forms of government unless they act out in some specific ways?
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #30  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    Are we not allowed to object to forms of government unless they act out in some specific ways?
    Read my frigging post. I wholly supported showing disrespect to persons who represent a nation or other political entity when you do so because you do not respect that nation or political entity. What I am objecting to is your recommendation we show disrespect to the Queen because she is royalty.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  32. #31  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    17,036
    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt View Post
    What I am objecting to is your recommendation we show disrespect to the Queen because she is royalty.
    Or, rather, showing disrespect to all UK and Commonwealth citizens because they happen to have a monarch as head of state.
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  33. #32  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    city of wine and roses
    Posts
    6,222
    Aha! Disrespect. One of my favourite anecdotes.

    Uganda. The despicable Idi Amin was in control. There was some African Commonwealth bunfest or other and Prince Charles was there representing the Queen. Idi Amin managed to maintain his country's right to attend. The usual greetings and handshakes ensued .... until Amin offered his hand to Charles. Who turned his back.

    I presume he'd been coached by the diplomatic staff on how to do this, the idea that it was a spontaneous gesture is nonsensical, but he did it. And calmly moved on to talking with other people.

    Now that is disrespect!
    westwind likes this.
    "Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen." Winston Churchill
    "nature is like a game of Jenga; you never know which brick you pull out will cause the whole stack to collapse" Lucy Cooke
    Reply With Quote  
     

  34. #33  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,035
    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    Are we not allowed to object to forms of government unless they act out in some specific ways?
    Read my frigging post. I wholly supported showing disrespect to persons who represent a nation or other political entity when you do so because you do not respect that nation or political entity. What I am objecting to is your recommendation we show disrespect to the Queen because she is royalty.
    So it's all or nothing? We have to either respect the society at large, and absolutely everything about it, or respect absolutely nothing at all about it? We can't pick and choose which parts to respect and which parts not to?
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  35. #34  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Read the post. Then try to understand it. You can have any range of feelings about the society you wish and express these feelings in any way you wish. What is inappropriate is to attack the symbol of that society because you don't happen to like some strawman concept of royalty you incorrectly believe is also assocciated with that symbolic person. Now if you cannot understand that , then I am done with you.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  36. #35  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,035
    Ok.

    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt View Post
    I wholly supported showing disrespect to persons who represent a nation or other political entity when you do so because you do not respect that nation or political entity.
    You "wholly supported showing disrespect to persons who represent a nation or other political entity when you do so because you do not respect that nation or political entity. "

    So if I have no respect for the nation as a whole, it's ok not to bow to their royalty. But, supposing that I respect the nation at large, but not that one specific institution (which may be one of many institutions), I ought to show (unfelt) respect for that institution anyway, on the basis of my overall respect for the country itself?


    What I am objecting to is your recommendation we show disrespect to the Queen because she is royalty.
    I've already acknowledged that disrespect to the person is inappropriate. Ironically it's inappropriate for the same reason as why I object to requiring someone to show positive respect for the institution on the basis of overall respect for the country. If I object to the title she holds, I should object to that title and only that title, not the woman herself, against whom I hold no personal ill feelings.

    Failing to bow would not be discourteous were she a common woman, and believing that she ought not to hold herself to be anything else but a common person like me, I should not feel that I am showing her any personal disrespect by failing to bow.


    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt View Post
    You are totally missing the point. In showing disrespect, even as mild as you now portray it, you are showing disrespect not to the Queen but to the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and to the Commonwealth. The Queen is a constitutional monarch. She is the figurehead of the countries and principalities making up the UK and of the nations and protectorates making up the Commonwealth. Your disrespect is disrespect to those entities. Now that's fine if you feel such disrespect, but otherwise it is wholly inappropriate.
    What if I were to encounter a country that assigned high ceremonial value to shooting up Heroine? So refusal to shoot up heroine with their junky monarch was a huge slap in the face, and would be taken to indicate that I had no respect at all for the country as a whole?

    My point is, you can't combine two things together and require people to object to both or neither like that. It's not honest. I guess politics inherently isn't honest either .... so whatever. ... but demanding that I show respect for the institution of monarchy in order to show respect for your country is absurd.
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  37. #36  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    city of wine and roses
    Posts
    6,222
    It's not honest. I guess politics inherently isn't honest either ....
    No, it's not politics, it's diplomacy.

    ‘an ambassador is an honest man sent to lie abroad for their country.’
    Perhaps many who use the saying don’t know how old it is — it was first written by Sir Henry Wotton, an English diplomat of the early 17th century. Wotton’s rash (and originally private) comment about lying for one’s country was already a piece of facile cynicism when he wrote it. He fell into disgrace when it was publicised in 1611, leaving him without diplomatic work for some years. Perhaps things have moved on since then.
    When you read the rest of the item, Whistleblowing: Lying for Your Country , you'll see that this modern diplomat was talking about not lying for your country on the basis of honesty and integrity requirements for public servants.

    What he doesn't talk about is the environment in which you can tell uncomfortable truths. If you, personally as a diplomat, and your country and its leaders generally have consistently shown consideration and respect for the country in question and its leaders and culture you're in a much better position to deal with the not-so-nice messages that must occasionally be transmitted. Drinking a vile traditional brew at functions, ensuring the embassy staff and spouses adhere to customs like 'modest' dress, going through the motions of bowing or kissing or never turning your back are all laying the groundwork for later interactions.

    If you never gain respect because you consistently flout such cultural and social customs, you'll be treated as a graceless oaf from a country of similar graceless oafs. You will not be trusted in financial or other positive discussions about contracts and agreements. You will be dismissed as unimportant or irrelevant when you want to convey serious negative messages. When you need regional cooperation for some international process or other, you may not even be invited to sit at the table if the people you've offended happen to be a host nation.

    Diplomats and politicians may not "lie abroad for their country", but they do have to comply with customs they find ridiculous and they often have to hold their noses when dealing with people they would cross the street to avoid if they had the option. Bowing is not servile, it's just going through the motions to please someone you want to maintain cordial relations with.
    "Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen." Winston Churchill
    "nature is like a game of Jenga; you never know which brick you pull out will cause the whole stack to collapse" Lucy Cooke
    Reply With Quote  
     

  38. #37  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,035
    Quote Originally Posted by adelady View Post

    What he doesn't talk about is the environment in which you can tell uncomfortable truths. If you, personally as a diplomat, and your country and its leaders generally have consistently shown consideration and respect for the country in question and its leaders and culture you're in a much better position to deal with the not-so-nice messages that must occasionally be transmitted. Drinking a vile traditional brew at functions , ensuring the embassy staff and spouses adhere to customs like 'modest' dress, going through the motions of bowing or kissing or never turning your back are all laying the groundwork for later interactions.
    Then the world is likely headed for trouble. If Romney is elected, he will not likely be willing to consume any alcohol regardless of the diplomatic context.


    Alcohol Has Touched Mitt Romney




    If you never gain respect because you consistently flout such cultural and social customs, you'll be treated as a graceless oaf from a country of similar graceless oafs. You will not be trusted in financial or other positive discussions about contracts and agreements. You will be dismissed as unimportant or irrelevant when you want to convey serious negative messages. When you need regional cooperation for some international process or other, you may not even be invited to sit at the table if the people you've offended happen to be a host nation.

    Diplomats and politicians may not "lie abroad for their country", but they do have to comply with customs they find ridiculous and they often have to hold their noses when dealing with people they would cross the street to avoid if they had the option. Bowing is not servile, it's just going through the motions to please someone you want to maintain cordial relations with.
    Be that as it may, there is a whole other kind of respect to consider. If you're representing a primarily Christian constituency and the other diplomats hold up a cross and demand that you spit on it with them, then you have to choose between being their friend, and being unhappy with yourself. It's important for others to know that you're willing to walk away from the table if they press you too hard. A good portion of diplomacy is haggling, and the winner of a haggle is usually the one who can stand to walk away from the transaction.

    For early American officials, bowing to a royal would not have been dissimilar to spitting on a cross. A bloody revolutionary war had been fought over the question of whether all men were equal (admittedly only men at the time, and only white men who owned property - but still.) To do all that and then bow to royalty anyway would have been an insult to those peoples' sacrifices. I guess as time progresses, we forget more and more where things started. I'm sad to see that tradition die.

    Because when Americans acknowledge social inequalities as legitimate, the world is headed in an unfortunate direction.
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  39. #38  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    city of wine and roses
    Posts
    6,222
    Drinking a vile traditional brew at functions
    I wasn't thinking so much of alcohol. More along the lines of warm, rancid, yak butter tea - and its various horrible cousins around the world.
    "Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen." Winston Churchill
    "nature is like a game of Jenga; you never know which brick you pull out will cause the whole stack to collapse" Lucy Cooke
    Reply With Quote  
     

  40. #39  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    Because when Americans acknowledge social inequalities as legitimate, the world is headed in an unfortunate direction.
    For the fifth or sixth frigging time, bowing to royalty is not acknowledging social inequlaities it is showing respect to the people and constitution of the UK. Stop acting so goddamn dumb and accept that simple fact. The next time you deliberately ignore this simple point I shall feel constrained to report you for provocative trolling.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  41. #40  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,245
    AMERICANS DO NOT BOW TO ROYALTY!!!!
    The movie in my head of you saying this is not very flattering. Do you come from the Southern states?
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  42. #41  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard icewendigo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    2,150
    If you think Obama has royalty issues you havent seen anything, Harper in Canada worships monarchy, has pictures of the Queen everywhere, re-names everything "Royal" this and Royal that, calls the government "the Crown"??? No kidding. WTF?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  43. #42  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Northumbria UK
    Posts
    1,043
    Stephen Harper has a majority government, so respecting the crown has not hindered him or Canada.

    Stephen Harper puts the monarchy back in ‘Canadian’ | Kathryn Marshall
    .
    Reply With Quote  
     

  44. #43  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    1,847
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    and believing that she ought not to hold herself to be anything else but a common person like me, I should not feel that I am showing her any personal disrespect by failing to bow.
    On the other hand, if you are the President representing the official power of your country - a dominant official power - and if the situation were not that the Queen held herself to be a superior person but that all her countryfolk held her to a role symbolizing what was best about themselves and their history, in the face of that dominant power,

    then the situation is not a common person greeting another as their equal, is it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  45. #44  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,035
    Quote Originally Posted by icewendigo View Post
    If you think Obama has royalty issues you havent seen anything, Harper in Canada worships monarchy, has pictures of the Queen everywhere, re-names everything "Royal" this and Royal that, calls the government "the Crown"??? No kidding. WTF?
    As I understand it, Canada is still a commonwealth of England in some respects, is it not? They never stopped respecting the king/queen of England. No bloody revolution against King George. No "all men are created equal" in their declaration of independence. Therefore: no conflict in bowing to royalty.

    Quote Originally Posted by iceaura View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    and believing that she ought not to hold herself to be anything else but a common person like me, I should not feel that I am showing her any personal disrespect by failing to bow.
    On the other hand, if you are the President representing the official power of your country - a dominant official power - and if the situation were not that the Queen held herself to be a superior person but that all her countryfolk held her to a role symbolizing what was best about themselves and their history, in the face of that dominant power,

    then the situation is not a common person greeting another as their equal, is it.
    So maybe the USA should start expecting people to bow to our president too? Maybe Americans should start bowing to the president?

    You do realize don't you, that the official, originally intended meaning of a bow was to acknowledge one's own inferior status by lowering one's head below that of the person towards whom you feel yourself to be inferior?

    Does the Queen of England bow to Saudi Princes or kings when she encounters them?


    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    Because when Americans acknowledge social inequalities as legitimate, the world is headed in an unfortunate direction.
    For the fifth or sixth frigging time, bowing to royalty is not acknowledging social inequlaities it is showing respect to the people and constitution of the UK. Stop acting so goddamn dumb and accept that simple fact. The next time you deliberately ignore this simple point I shall feel constrained to report you for provocative trolling.
    Why are you being so simple? Do you think you can just tie two concepts together and force me to acknowledge both or neither? It isn't my fault the people of England have chosen to allow me one and only one way of communicating respect to them, and forcibly tied it together with the communication of respect toward inequality also. That was their choice. If they allow me to do one and not the other, I will gladly take my opportunity to do so.

    Suppose the Queen and a mafia don are standing next to each other, and I am required to either

    A) - Bow to both the Queen and the Mafia Don beside her

    or

    B) - Neither the Queen, nor the Mafia Don beside her.

    No matter which thing I choose I'm screwed. It's the same problem here. Either I must acknowledge both social inequality of birth and England, or neither inequality of birth, nor England. It's not my fault the two things are standing next to each other.
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  46. #45  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    The Queen doesn't associate with mafia dons. She has members of her governement to do that, so the conflict would not arise.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  47. #46  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    17,036
    You could bow to the Queen and, in the words of a British diplomat, vomit on the shoes of the mafia don.
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  48. #47  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    1,847
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    So maybe the USA should start expecting people to bow to our president too? Maybe Americans should start bowing to the president?
    Those Americans who think Presidents symbolize and embody, in their person, all they are most proud of and revere in their country and society and character as a people, are free to bow.

    Those who regard him as a temporarily hired head of the Executive Branch of a government expected to provide governmental services, will shake hands as befits their respect for the man and the job.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  49. #48  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Northumbria UK
    Posts
    1,043
    [QUOTE=kojax;315660]
    Quote Originally Posted by icewendigo View Post

    Suppose the Queen and a mafia don are standing next to each other.

    .
    Kojax, Icewendigo,
    How dare you suggest that the Queen and the mafia have equivalence.
    .
    Reply With Quote  
     

  50. #49  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Quote Originally Posted by iceaura View Post
    Those who regard him as a temporarily hired head of the Executive Branch of a government expected to provide governmental services, will shake hands as befits their respect for the man and the job.
    And therein lies one fo the strengths of a constitutional monarchy. We can attack, curse and abuse our Prime Minister as much as we wish without any of those actions being even slightly unpatriotic. When you remonstrate with an American President there is always a risk of holding back out of respect for the consitution and country which he represents. (Plus very few people go to the US as tourists to see the President.)
    Dave Wilson likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  51. #50  
    Ascended Member Ascended's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Norfolk
    Posts
    3,492
    I think it is right for Obama to bow to royalty, firstly most American presidents are actually related to royalty, please see: Genealogical relationships of Presidents of the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia for details, and secondly he is representing the American people and showing respect on their behalf. His actions reflect on the american people, so he has to be respectful. This is also one of the reasons he is so popular around the world. People want to believe in America and have respect for America, Obama by showing respect to others is giving them the reason to show respect for America.

    Most of the world wants to look to America for leadership and direction they need some to say they will be respected for doing so, Obama does this very well. Bush could never command the global respect that Obama has.
    “The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts.”

    Bertrand Russell
    Reply With Quote  
     

  52. #51  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,795
    Quote Originally Posted by Chrisgorlitz View Post
    His actions reflect on the american people, so he has to be respectful.
    Do you mean respect like returning Churchill's bust? Or like giving the queen an Ipod? How about using the Argentinian name for the Falklands, which he idiotically referred to as "Maldives." I guess Brits just love to have their noses rubbed in it.

    Barack Obama sends bust of Winston Churchill on its way back to Britain - Telegraph
    Did Obama's iPod gift make the cut? - Nia-Malika Henderson - POLITICO.com
    Barack Obama makes Falklands gaffe by calling Malvinas the Maldives - Telegraph
    Reply With Quote  
     

  53. #52  
    Ascended Member Ascended's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Norfolk
    Posts
    3,492
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Chrisgorlitz View Post
    His actions reflect on the american people, so he has to be respectful.
    Do you mean respect like returning Churchill's bust? Or like giving the queen an Ipod? How about using the Argentinian name for the Falklands, which he idiotically referred to as "Maldives." I guess Brits just love to have their noses rubbed in it.

    Barack Obama sends bust of Winston Churchill on its way back to Britain - Telegraph
    Did Obama's iPod gift make the cut? - Nia-Malika Henderson - POLITICO.com
    Barack Obama makes Falklands gaffe by calling Malvinas the Maldives - Telegraph
    I think we would probarbly like Obama no matter what he did. We do tend to have a bias, rightly or wrongly, to prefer Democrat presidents.
    We may moan a little, but really most us just want look up to America and having a popular president gives us that reason. Everyone moaned about Bush, probarbly more so than he deserved, but then he was set up as the villain so that everyone would like Obama even more.
    “The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts.”

    Bertrand Russell
    Reply With Quote  
     

  54. #53  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,035
    I'm going to ask the question again: would the Queen of England have bowed to a Saudi Royal?

    I think she wouldn't, because she has to insist that her royal title is at least equal in importance to that the Saudi's title. For the USA, it is engrained in our founding literature that "All men are created equal" and therefore that an American's status as "citizen" is at least equal in importance to the title of "Royal" in any other country, because in the USA Royals and Citizens are equal.

    You can't go around making "special exceptions" to an ethic like that, or it quickly loses its meaning.
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  55. #54  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    city of wine and roses
    Posts
    6,222
    You can't go around making "special exceptions" to an ethic like that, or it quickly loses its meaning.
    When you're the head of the most powerful state in the world -

    you're free to make polite gestures to little old ladies who represent not very much in your scheme of things.
    Ascended likes this.
    "Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen." Winston Churchill
    "nature is like a game of Jenga; you never know which brick you pull out will cause the whole stack to collapse" Lucy Cooke
    Reply With Quote  
     

  56. #55  
    Forum Professor jrmonroe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    1,444
    Bush bowed to the Pope.

    bush-bow-300x269.jpg

    Nixon bowed to Mao.

    nixonsbowtomao.jpg

    Eisenhower bowed to De Gaulle.

    20091116-fncbow2.jpg
    Grief is the price we pay for love. (CM Parkes) Our postillion has been struck by lightning. (Unknown) War is always the choice of the chosen who will not have to fight. (Bono) The years tell much what the days never knew. (RW Emerson) Reality is not always probable, or likely. (JL Borges)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  57. #56  
    Ascended Member Ascended's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Norfolk
    Posts
    3,492
    Quote Originally Posted by adelady View Post
    You can't go around making "special exceptions" to an ethic like that, or it quickly loses its meaning.
    When you're the head of the most powerful state in the world -

    you're free to make polite gestures to little old ladies who represent not very much in your scheme of things.

    I really like that answer, because the Queen doesn't really have any power all bowing would be doing is showing respectfulness. The idea that bowing would in anyway be showing some sort of inferiority is pretty ridiculous.
    “The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts.”

    Bertrand Russell
    Reply With Quote  
     

  58. #57  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,035
    I guess England isn't much of a threat anymore, and England is only a monarchy in name, so there is that.

    I suppose I'm a little bit more threatened when my head of state bows to a Saudi Royal, then, since they're genuinely powerful on a lot of levels. How can he not, once he's bowed to the Queen?
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  59. #58  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    city of wine and roses
    Posts
    6,222
    I suppose I'm a little bit more threatened when my head of state bows to a Saudi Royal, then, since they're genuinely powerful on a lot of levels.
    Powerful? In what meaning of the word?

    They're a dominant supplier of a resource the world in general, and the USA in particular, foolishly allowed itself to enmesh into the economy into a near-malignant way. But let's face it. Saudi oil will soon be in the same category as whale oil. It could be used for lighting and heating and various industrial purposes, but we've found better ways to achieve those ends. Good engineering driven by sensible economic policies can eliminate this particular problem.

    What else?
    "Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen." Winston Churchill
    "nature is like a game of Jenga; you never know which brick you pull out will cause the whole stack to collapse" Lucy Cooke
    Reply With Quote  
     

  60. #59  
    Forum Freshman ClaimingLight's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    35
    Apparently, being American means being an unworldly asshole. Which is ironic, because most of us Americans don't understand why the world thinks we're a bunch of assholes. HA!

    In my mind, this is a VERY SOLID reason to vote for Obama. For a man in his station, it is encouraging to see that he hasn't forgotten his actual place in the world- as a man in a world of men. Are YOU too good to bow to a man you respect? Am I? Hell no. Nor should he be.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  61. #60  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,035
    Quote Originally Posted by adelady View Post
    I suppose I'm a little bit more threatened when my head of state bows to a Saudi Royal, then, since they're genuinely powerful on a lot of levels.
    Powerful? In what meaning of the word?

    They're a dominant supplier of a resource the world in general, and the USA in particular, foolishly allowed itself to enmesh into the economy into a near-malignant way. But let's face it. Saudi oil will soon be in the same category as whale oil. It could be used for lighting and heating and various industrial purposes, but we've found better ways to achieve those ends. Good engineering driven by sensible economic policies can eliminate this particular problem.

    What else?
    They are extremely wealthy in terms of how many USD they possess. Most of the money they got out of the first and second oil crisis was almost immediately re-invested in the American economy. Likewise with the money they're making now. Reinvesting it is the only way to keep the exchange value relative to their own currency from depreciating.

    I think perhaps many people do not understand how very crucial this resource is, and how much market power OPEC gets by being able to maintain the collusive agreements between the various member countries that are used to determine the price of that commodity. In the USA, we're paying 4.00/gallon for a commodity that was selling for 1.00/gallon a little over a decade ago. That's 4.00/gallon for the same item that would have been profitable to produce and sell at 1.00/gallon. At a minimum, 75% of that price must be pure net profit for somebody. Even if we assume inflation would have naturally driven it up to 2.00 a gallon, that's still a minimum of 50% of the price being pure net profit.

    We're a country that worships investors, so now I guess the Saudis are not merely kings. They're gods.
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  62. #61  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    city of wine and roses
    Posts
    6,222
    In the USA, we're paying 4.00/gallon for a commodity that was selling for 1.00/gallon a little over a decade ago.
    $4.00 a gallon? Thank your lucky stars!

    I don't know what any of the Europeans on here might say, but $4 a gallon is pretty good.

    Check out German prices. GASOLINE-GERMANY-COM - Price fixing and gasoline price forecast for Germany | USD / Gallon
    "Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen." Winston Churchill
    "nature is like a game of Jenga; you never know which brick you pull out will cause the whole stack to collapse" Lucy Cooke
    Reply With Quote  
     

  63. #62  
    Ascended Member Ascended's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Norfolk
    Posts
    3,492
    Quote Originally Posted by adelady View Post
    In the USA, we're paying 4.00/gallon for a commodity that was selling for 1.00/gallon a little over a decade ago.
    $4.00 a gallon? Thank your lucky stars!

    I don't know what any of the Europeans on here might say, but $4 a gallon is pretty good.

    Check out German prices. GASOLINE-GERMANY-COM - Price fixing and gasoline price forecast for Germany | USD / Gallon

    Where I live in England diesel is £1.40 per litre, so @ 4.5 litres to a gallon that's what £6.30 and @ $1.56 to the pound that works out at $9.81.

    So I'm paying nearly $10 a gallon here in England, you guys got it cheap indeed. But alot of that cost is what the government get in tax, it's not just profit for the petrol companies.
    “The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts.”

    Bertrand Russell
    Reply With Quote  
     

  64. #63  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,035
    So, in other words: it's even worse in other countries. The Saudis are even more powerful.

    But you understand the other part, right? If a product is profitable at $1.00/gallon, and by manipulating quantities you are able to sell it at $4.00/gallon, that's quite a markup. Especially if it isn't substantially affecting how many you are able to sell.
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  65. #64  
    Ascended Member Ascended's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Norfolk
    Posts
    3,492
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    So, in other words: it's even worse in other countries. The Saudis are even more powerful.

    But you understand the other part, right? If a product is profitable at $1.00/gallon, and by manipulating quantities you are able to sell it at $4.00/gallon, that's quite a markup. Especially if it isn't substantially affecting how many you are able to sell.
    We get alot of ours from North Sea oil, which has nothing to do with the Saudi's. Also about 64% of petrol costs go to the UK government in tax and about 62% for Diesel.
    “The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts.”

    Bertrand Russell
    Reply With Quote  
     

  66. #65  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,035
    Quote Originally Posted by Chrisgorlitz View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    So, in other words: it's even worse in other countries. The Saudis are even more powerful.

    But you understand the other part, right? If a product is profitable at $1.00/gallon, and by manipulating quantities you are able to sell it at $4.00/gallon, that's quite a markup. Especially if it isn't substantially affecting how many you are able to sell.
    We get alot of ours from North Sea oil, which has nothing to do with the Saudi's. Also about 64% of petrol costs go to the UK government in tax and about 62% for Diesel.
    The taxes probably make a big difference. Americans often complain about oil taxes also, but in the USA they're a very small fraction of the price. Nothing grand like 64%.

    As for where the oil comes from (which supplier) making a difference. That's a popular misconception. It really doesn't matter which supplier you use very much. The price of oil is based on global supply vs. global demand. The decision is always made at the fully global level. Local issues only influence the price slightly.

    If North Sea oil couldn't get the price they wanted from you, they'd sell the oil to someone else who would pay it. If the Saudis thought your market was willing to pay more per gallon, they'd enter your market and compete with them. (Unless the government interferes in this, in which case I take back that part of what I said - a market the government is directly interfering with could charge a higher/lower price than the global price.)
    Last edited by kojax; June 8th, 2012 at 11:03 AM.
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  67. #66  
    Ascended Member Ascended's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Norfolk
    Posts
    3,492
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Chrisgorlitz View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    So, in other words: it's even worse in other countries. The Saudis are even more powerful.

    But you understand the other part, right? If a product is profitable at $1.00/gallon, and by manipulating quantities you are able to sell it at $4.00/gallon, that's quite a markup. Especially if it isn't substantially affecting how many you are able to sell.
    We get alot of ours from North Sea oil, which has nothing to do with the Saudi's. Also about 64% of petrol costs go to the UK government in tax and about 62% for Diesel.
    The taxes probably make a big difference. Americans often complain about oil taxes also, but in the USA they're a very small fraction of the price. Nothing grand like 64%.

    As for where the oil comes from (which supplier) making a difference. That's a popular misconception. It really doesn't matter which supplier you use very much. The price of oil is based on global supply vs. global demand. The decision is always made at the fully global level. Local issues only influence the price slightly.

    If North Sea oil couldn't get the price they wanted from you, they'd sell the oil to someone else who would pay it. If the Saudis thought your market was willing to pay more per gallon, they'd enter your market and compete with them. (Unless the government interferes in this, in which case I take back that part of what I said - a market the government is directly interfering with could charge a higher/lower price than the global price.)

    It seems to me that we, I mean US & UK, just seem to invade or have the government overthrown of a another oil rich state every time the price of oil gets to high. Next thing you know our companies have shiny new oil conctacts, coincidence?
    “The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts.”

    Bertrand Russell
    Reply With Quote  
     

  68. #67  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Quote Originally Posted by Chrisgorlitz View Post
    It seems to me that we, I mean US & UK, just seem to invade or have the government overthrown of a another oil rich state every time the price of oil gets to high. Next thing you know our companies have shiny new oil conctacts, coincidence?
    Well there was Iraq and of course, well, Iraq. And I suppose you've got to consider, let me think....Iraq?

    It seems to me that we - I mean you haven't actually thought this through. Please name the oil rich states we have invaded that meet your criteria. You can start of with Iraq, it's just that I suspect you'll end there also.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  69. #68  
    Ascended Member Ascended's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Norfolk
    Posts
    3,492
    You mean besides the oil contracts that our companies now have with Tunisia, Egypt and Libya or the ones we might hope to get from the down fall of Syria and Iran? Whilst of course not mentioning Iraq.
    “The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts.”

    Bertrand Russell
    Reply With Quote  
     

  70. #69  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    When did we invade Egypt? Oh, that's right 1885, or thereabouts, except it wasn't really an invasion - we were invited in. Or 1956, but that was to secure the Suez canal and we got forced to leave by the Americans. So strike one for your claim we invaded Egypt for oil. And no, we didn't overthrow the government of Egypt, or arrange for it to be overthrown.

    Libya? I thought you might bring that up. We already had lucrative oil contracts with the Libyans. The overthrow of Gaddafi was a pain in the butt for the oil industry. It impacted on my bonus payment for one thing. So supporting the revolution was counterproductive from the standpoint of oil access.

    Tunisia? As far as I am aware - I stand ready to be corrected by you - the agreements that were in force before the recent revolution were still in force after the revolution.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  71. #70  
    Ascended Member Ascended's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Norfolk
    Posts
    3,492
    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt View Post
    When did we invade Egypt? Oh, that's right 1885, or thereabouts, except it wasn't really an invasion - we were invited in. Or 1956, but that was to secure the Suez canal and we got forced to leave by the Americans. So strike one for your claim we invaded Egypt for oil. And no, we didn't overthrow the government of Egypt, or arrange for it to be overthrown.

    Libya? I thought you might bring that up. We already had lucrative oil contracts with the Libyans. The overthrow of Gaddafi was a pain in the butt for the oil industry. It impacted on my bonus payment for one thing. So supporting the revolution was counterproductive from the standpoint of oil access.

    Tunisia? As far as I am aware - I stand ready to be corrected by you - the agreements that were in force before the recent revolution were still in force after the revolution.
    I stand corrected it must just be a massive coincidence that as the price of oil was rising and these countries fell that we suddenly ended up with all these nice shiny oil contracts. Truely amazing things these coincidence's.
    “The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts.”

    Bertrand Russell
    Reply With Quote  
     

  72. #71  
    Ascended Member Ascended's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Norfolk
    Posts
    3,492
    Just for the sake of other people that may be reading I will say that when it comes to oil contracts that John should and does know more than I do, however I still say from an outsiders point of view it looks a little suspicious to say the least.
    “The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts.”

    Bertrand Russell
    Reply With Quote  
     

  73. #72  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,035
    It seems to me that we, I mean US & UK, just seem to invade or have the government overthrown of a another oil rich state every time the price of oil gets to high. Next thing you know our companies have shiny new oil conctacts, coincidence?[/QUOTE]

    It's much more insidious than that. The "invade to get oil" is the cover story that was sold to the American public, and greedy people that we are, we bought into it. The real goal was to *deprive* Americans of oil, so they'd have to pay a higher price to the Saudies/Opec.

    While Saddam was in power, he was making every effort to keep those oil wells pumping out oil. We impeded him from doing so with treaties, such as Oil for Food, where he could only trade oil for basic necessities, but whenever he could get it to a buyer, he pumped all the oil he could. You'll remember that I mentioned that oil prices are determined globally, right? Saddam's efforts lowered oil prices everywhere on Earth, not just for the direct customer he was selling to. He drove up the amount of supply, which causes prices to go down.

    Now he's gone, and his oil wells lie dormant, and the same powers that pushed our last president into Iraq are trying to get the current president to go after Iran (which would cause the supply of oil to be even smaller, causing prices to go up further) . It's an election year, so who knows what deals the candidates will cut?
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Similar Threads

  1. Obama at Disneyland?
    By Arthur Angler in forum Politics
    Replies: 33
    Last Post: January 27th, 2012, 11:51 PM
  2. Obama on education.
    By Lucius Cornelius Sulla in forum Education
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: November 24th, 2009, 08:18 PM
  3. Obama, the last Superman?
    By newnothing in forum General Discussion
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: August 16th, 2009, 11:44 PM
  4. Obama or McCain?
    By Quantime in forum Politics
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: November 5th, 2008, 11:59 AM
Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •