HANGZHOU, China — Air Force One had a bumpy landing in Hangzhou on Saturday, but it was nothing compared with what happened after the plane rolled to a stop.

As the reporters who traveled to the Group of 20 summit meeting with President Obama from Hawaii piled out and walked under the wing to record his arrival, we were abruptly met by a line of bright blue tape, held taut by security guards. In six years of covering the White House, I had never seen a foreign host prevent the news media from watching Mr. Obama disembark.

When a White House staff member protested to a Chinese security official that this was not normal protocol, the official shouted, “This is our country.”

In another departure from protocol, there was no rolling staircase for Mr. Obama to descend in view of the television cameras. Instead, he emerged from a door in the belly of the plane that he usually uses only on high-security trips, like those to Afghanistan.

Witnessing the scene, Susan E. Rice, the national security adviser, looked baffled and annoyed. Joined by her deputy, Benjamin J. Rhodes, she ducked under the rope to make her way closer to the president. The two were immediately stopped by the same Chinese official, who angrily challenged them. Asked later what happened, a diplomatic Ms. Rice replied, “They did things that weren’t anticipated.”

There were further surprises. At the West Lake State House, where Mr. Obama met President Xi Jinping, White House aides, protocol officers and Secret Service agents got into a series of shouting matches over how many Americans should be allowed into the building before Mr. Obama’s arrival. There were fears the confrontation would become physical.

Trump's slogan is "MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!"

He obviously feels America is not great for him to make it his slogan and he is right.


Clinton repeats in her rallies, "AMERICA IS ALREADY GREAT!"

Given the overt and covert acts to eliminate/subvert/corrupt the US Constitution, Bill of Rights, and electoral process, she is obviously correct in her beliefs, since it is the erosion of the nation's legal structure that those similar to her are working towards to achieve their goals.
 

China disrespected Obama this week upon his arrival at the G20 Summit.  This is pretty harsh treatment for the "most powerful man in the world."

Most already know the world disrespects the US more now than ever, but the media repeats Obama's talking points that international relations are better now that under Bush.

If you like your greatness, you can keep your greatness .....  Maybe he could bow a few more times to show we deserve respect?

The lack of respect and likeness from foreign countries are yet more characteristics of a nation that is no longer viewed as great.  For starters, if America wishes to gain respect and admirers abroad, it could start by ending its hegemonic imperial ambitions (e.g., installing and supporting dictators, illegal wars of aggression, putting military bases all over the World, killing of innocent civilians through its drone program, etc.) and begin taking that money to reinvent production-based capitalism back into its borders.


Kuleana

I'd rather our nation be respected than well liked.

Seems we're heading down the road toward "Nether!"

The lack of respect and likeness from foreign countries are yet more characteristics of a nation that is no longer viewed as great.  For starters, if America wishes to gain respect and admirers abroad, it could start by ending its hegemonic imperial ambitions (e.g., installing and supporting dictators, illegal wars of aggression, putting military bases all over the World, killing of innocent civilians through its drone program, etc.) and begin taking that money to reinvent production-based capitalism back into its borders.


Kuleana

I don't think this is that big an issue. We are complaining that China isn't nice enough to us? Big deal, move on. It's not like we think of China as best of friends either.

There are so many more things at play than to narrow it down to whether China "disrespected" our president. What are we going to do, beat them up to demand they respect us?

China is a rising power and they probably want to be treated as equals instead of feeling like America bosses them around. Thus it doesn't surprise me if they flex their new muscle in ways like this.

Kuleana,

I agree that the lack of respect towards the us from foreign countries is due to the fact that they no longer view us as the greatest country in the world. This is not the only reason imho. A lot has to do with lack of leadership and changes in policies of the present administration, etc.

I agree totally.


However, I don't necessarily agree with your assumption that some or all of it is due to "hegemonic imperial ambitions". But I would appreciate some insight from you on this, though. If we had not done all the things you accused the us of doing: "e.g., installing and supporting dictators, illegal wars of aggression, putting military bases all over the World, killing of innocent civilians through its drone program, etc." Then what would become of the us?

We would still have our nuclear deterrent, which would ensure no foreign invasion.  Plus, we would have a tremendous amount of resources available to rebuild our domestic production capacity, revitalize many depressed communities with infrastructure projects, and more financial assistance for social security, education, healthcare, veterans benefits, etc.


In other words if we had no friends and allies due to us putting military bases all over the world, how would we defend ourselves against the rest of the world?

Defend ourselves from whom is my first question.

My second question is what countries even have the military capacity to invade the US?

Third, knowing the US has the most nuclear weapons in its arsenal, what country is psychotic enough to risk their nation being glassed 1,000 times over by attacking the US?


Our nato allies are basically our allies because we put bases in their countries and pay them to keep them there.

There lies one of the problems I mentioned above.  No country friend or foe wants military assets that is not their own located on their territory for any extended period of time.  The obvious reason being that their own citizens and property would be destroyed if those US bases were attacked by America's enemies.


Most of them are socialist countries as well.

Then why is America making allies with them if they practice an economic ideology contradictory to the US?


And would probably turn on us the second we stop the money train.

Most of them dislike America right now.


I also believe that those countries can just as easily tell us to go to hell and kick our asses out anytime they want to. So we are not forcing them in any way to keep bases in their countries.

Yes, those countries can and would, IF, their own domestic elections were not influenced by US money, thereby, insuring a pro-US leader each election.


Personally, I believe that the only countries that truly believe that we have "hegemonic imperial ambitions" are our enemies. And we should not care what our enemies think of us. Maybe you can name some of the friendly nations to the us that publicly accuse us of all the things you are accusing us of doing?

Most of the allies of the US have leaders that are pro-US due to what I mentioned above.  Nations whose elections were not swayed by US money are almost always the enemy.  After the Cold War, Russia was friends with America early on, but became an enemy because the Russians did not vote a pro-US candidate that would allow US corporations continued unfettered access to their economy. 

Venezuela was always a friend of the US until America's pro-US candidate lost to Hugo Chavez, who would not allow US exploitation of his countries natural oil reserves to US corporations.

As for friendly nations that despise US presence in their countries, Okinawa comes to mind.  Ever since the establishment of permanent US bases on their island, the people of Okinawa has and continually made it clear they want those bases closed.

In the immediate years after the fall of pro-US dictator Ferdinand Marcos, the Philippines closed the historically hated Subic Naval and Clark Air Force Base; however, only having them opened again to the US once another pro-US leader came to power despite grass-roots protests.

Finally and most recently, due to the American involvement to illegally overthrow the democratically elected President Erdogan of Turkey for a more pro-US leader, Turkey is currently deciding whether to leave NATO and permanently closing the US bases on its territory.


Also, without bases all over the world to go along with our nato allies I personally don't think the us could survive against all the aggressive nations.

Once again, I must rhetorically ask: why does the US have all these aggressive nations supposedly targeting their hatred to the US?  Do you think it may have to do with something the US might have done within those nations?


What do you think of all of what I said?

I think you have valid positions and am grateful for the opportunity to open a discussion on these issues.


Not trying to start an argument here. Since we differ so much in philosophy, I would like to hear your take on my opinion.

My pleasure.


Kuleana

It doesn't surprise me you don't get it.

This is a symptom of a much bigger problem.

I'd tell you what that problem is, but then I'd have to explain it to you.

Heaven forbid you have to articulate an actual argument point. But go ahead and take the easy way out by avoiding the topic by insulting someone who disagrees.

And no, it is not that I don't get it, it is that i disagree.

Kuleana,

You keep bringing up the point the US has the most nuclear weapons.  That's only a deterrent from being attacked with nukes or other WMDs.  The US is not going to escalate tonukes in a conventional or guerrilla-style conflict.

The response I have to the US participating in a conventional or guerrilla-style conflict is why would they be participating in those types of conflicts any way?  Let's face it, should the US ever get into a war with a military peer (e.g., Russia, China, or other nuclear armed nations) the exchange of nuclear weapons is a very high probability; hence, none of the afore mentioned nations would let their disagreements lead to a war that will result into mutual annihilation.

All of the conventional wars the US has participated since WWII were political mistakes, bounded by Agreement, or outright illegal.

The Korean and Vietnam War were ideological wars were there were no declaration of war from either the US or North Korea or Vietnam to begin with (Political Mistake).

The military interventions in Grenada and Panama had more to do with America's involvement with the Latin American drug trade than freedom or democracy (Illegal).

Iraq War I was based on a United Nations Resolution (Agreement), while Iraq War II was based on lies and deception (Illegal).

The illegal invasion of Afghanistan was suppose to be a surgical offensive against the CIA created Al-Queda (nation-less), but ended up with an undeclared war with the legitimate government of Afghanistan, the Taliban (Illegal).

The recent American involvement in Libya was another illegal invasion of a sovereign government with the attempt to install a pro-US puppet (Illegal).

Finally, the latest enemy, ISIS, is this decade's Al-Queda, which has no country, but is rather conveniently located in countries that the US wants to overthrow and install its own pro-US dictator (Syria).

As you can see in all of the known military actions the US has participated in since WWII, there has never been a non-nuclear armed country that ever declared war with the US.  With the exception of the so-called War on Terror, America has never had the need for conventional warfare as it's nuclear deterrent has done its job from dissuading any nuclear and non-nuclear nation from attacking the US.


Foreign invasion is not the number one military concern.  We protect our allies against THEIR enemies.  Correct me if I'm wrong, but I can't remember a foreign country attacking another foreign country because they were allies with the US.  In fact, the enemies of our allies are LESS likely to strike knowing we have a pact to protect the allies and resources already in country to do just that.

You are correct.

However, is this not the result because of the nuclear weapons the US possessed on its own soil as well as in Europe?  America's nuclear deterrent has worked nicely during the Cold War, don't you think?


There have been terror attacks on US  forces overseas, but that happens wherever the US has a presence, not just military forces.

There lies the problem.  Foreign presence (i.e., military bases, embassies, etc.) abroad that are unpopular will bring with it, attacks from the local population, no different from the attacks that the Roman Empire experienced on their foreign garrisons and consuls.  Local populations do not like foreign dignitaries or troops on their soil in the long-term, no matter the official reason.


Kuleana

Kuleana,

Thank you for your answers.

Your welcome.


As I stated before we don't agree on some things, but I am always interested in hearing both sides. I am always willing to change my position based on logic, facts and truth. Unfortunately, where we disagree is mostly a matter of different opinions and the way we look at the world/US as a whole. Nothing wrong with that. Just different.

My turn to ask you a question.  You say we have a different view of the World and the US.  What are these differences?


I would like to ask about one thing you stated as fact. And that is that the US has the most nukes. I have been under the impression that this was true at one time but Russia has taken over the title of most nukes. Can you point me to a link or something that shows that the US still has more nukes than Russia?

Kuleana,

Some of our differences are things such as your view about the US having "hegemonic imperial ambitions". I don't agree with your premise. I understand why you believe that. But I don't believe it. I agree that our wars after WWII have been political and illegal. But I don't see us gaining much of anything from any of those wars. I think for the US to have those sort of ambitions we should have been able to profit or gain something from each war. And I don't see where we have. As a matter of fact I see just the opposite.

SNIP

There have been no declarations of war by any UN members since it was created October 24, 1945.  Formal declarations of war for all UN member states is illegal.  Only the UN Security Council has the legal right to authorize force in response to an aggressor.  That's why the war in Korea was called a "police action" and executed under UN supervision. 

Therefore, since most countries in the World are members in the UN, what do the US and other nation states in the 21st century have to fear since any aggressor nations will get a coalition of military forces on their doorstep?


Vietnam was an attempt to aid the current government there to fight Communist takeover of the country.  It  began for the US by sending advisers only.  When China became involved, the US started becoming operationally involved.  We never declared war there partly because we were effectively fighting the Chinese, not N. Vietnam.

Proxy wars are very expensive with no clear military objectives and never a good idea with unwarranted consequences.


As a result of the unprecedented escalation in Vietnam, The War Powers Act of 1973 puts limits on the ability of the President to send American troops into combat areas without Congressional approval.  Under the act, the President can only send combat troops into battle or into areas where ''imminent'' hostilities are likely, for 60 days without either a declaration of war by Congress or a specific Congressional mandate.  The President can extend the time the troops are in the combat area for 30 extra days, without Congressional approval, for a total of 90 days.  The act, however, does not specify what Congress can do if the President refuses to comply with the act. Congress could presumably suspend all funds for such troops and override a Presidential veto.

The War Powers Act of 1973 was a very act of patriotism, since it prevented the Executive Branch from making illegal wars that are not in the best interests of the American people.  That is until the day following the attack of September 11, 2001, which the provisions of the Act were pushed to its limits and arguably in violation when President Obama allowed US forces to participate in the illegal overthrow of the Libyan government in 2011.   


Kuleana