Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

News Obama diplomacy

  1. Apr 19, 2009 #1
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8006135.stm


    Not only this one, but Mahmoud Ahmadinejad also shows respect to Obama. Obama was showing some concern about Roxana Saberi and so

    http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/20/world/middleeast/20iran.html?ref=middleeast

    While one republican thinks Obama shouldn't have greeted Chavez (I guess it's about when Chavez came to Obama at a conference to give him a historical book)

    (oops, I thought I am posting to Politics & World Affairs)
     
    Last edited: Apr 19, 2009
  2. jcsd
  3. Apr 24, 2009 #2
    "Respect" would be releasing Roxana Saberi...not bragging about 700 centrifuges.

    As for Chavez...perhaps Obama believes Chavez is more capable of protecting the environment than reckless US oil companies?

    You seem to have forgotten to say something nice about Cuba.
     
  4. Apr 24, 2009 #3
    1) She has other two charges: Working without a license and one more. Now, I don't remember if she is ought to be jailed for now too for those charges
    2) I believe Supreme court is not under the president so he cannot do much about it.
    3) She was charged for spying why she should be released if it turns out that the charges were real.


    Did he brag about it in his this speech?
     
    Last edited: Apr 25, 2009
  5. Apr 24, 2009 #4
    So Obama shouldn't have greeted him or receive the book from Chavez?
     
  6. Apr 25, 2009 #5
    http://www.commercialappeal.com/news/2009/apr/18/summit-obama-gets-friendly-chavez/ [Broken]

    http://www.philly.com/philly/news/homepage/20090420_Obama_calls_for_changes_as_talks_end.html [Broken]

    "Venezuela is a country whose defense budget is probably 1/600th of the United States'. They own Citgo," the retail arm of Venezuela's national oil company, Obama said. "It's unlikely that as a consequence of me shaking hands or having a polite conversation with Mr. Chavez, that we are endangering the strategic interests of the United States."
     
    Last edited by a moderator: May 4, 2017
  7. Apr 25, 2009 #6

    russ_watters

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    Not sure, but that book wasn't about respect either.

    Obama just looks too much like Neville Chamberlain with his foreign policy to me.
     
  8. Apr 25, 2009 #7

    mheslep

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    I generally like the idea of a less belligerent face on US foreign policy in the form an affable President, but I never expected it to become an apology roadshow. Then there's statements like the one above. Given an age of asymmetric warfare, how can he make statements like this? What was the defense budget ratio to the 911 hijackers and all of their handlers? 1e6:1? Chavez is a documented insurgent backer against his neighbor Columbia. What happened to the election speech mindset shown here:
    What happened to that guy?
     
    Last edited by a moderator: May 4, 2017
  9. Apr 25, 2009 #8
    What happened to the checks for $1,000 that all of the Senior citizens based their vote on...now $250 (I think)...25% of the promises isn't bad...right?:confused:
     
  10. Apr 25, 2009 #9
    Perhaps he is unlike many others capable of thinking rationally and keeping a cool head. In the good old days diplomacy was:

    In the "age of asymmetric warfare" it has been:

    "You are either with us or against us" or
    "I care what 51 percent of the people think about me."
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 26, 2009
  11. Apr 25, 2009 #10
    You seem to have forgotten that the majority of world population and money is not in the US. Maybe it is time for you to learn again, that even you need to make compromises.
     
  12. Apr 26, 2009 #11
    If Obama had a long and successful history of negotiations at a high level or substantial experience planning and implementing global strategies, I might argue we give him the benefit of the doubt with regards to his ground-breaking diplomatic start.

    But, I'm not aware of any high level negotiations experience in his portfolio. Seems like a gamble...with potential consequences.
     
  13. Apr 26, 2009 #12
    Diplomacy is a poker game.
     
  14. Apr 26, 2009 #13

    Is Obama a world class Poker-player?
     
  15. Apr 26, 2009 #14
    We don't know that until the game is over, right?
     
  16. Apr 26, 2009 #15
    As I posted...seems like gambling.
     
  17. Apr 26, 2009 #16
    Every once in a while one has to take a step into the unknown.
     
  18. Apr 26, 2009 #17
    Then we're in agreement...Obama is taking a gamble?
     
  19. Apr 26, 2009 #18
    I find it hard to believe that he could do worse than our last president. North Korea got the bomb. Iran almost (I hope it is almost) has the bomb. We are tied down in two wars. Everyone hates us. Two towers in New York get knocked down with great loss of life. The Pentagon gets attacked with great loss of life. The World economy almost collapses…. If Obama does worse than that then we are all dead!!
     
  20. Apr 27, 2009 #19

    MATLABdude

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    What did Theodore Roosevelt say? "Talk softly and carry a big stick", i.e. don't go around picking fights and saber rattling, but be ready if worst comes to worst. I don't believe a stated policy of belligerence is any better than a stated policy of appeasement. Talk is cheap, and war expensive; logic dictates that you should only do the latter when you absolutely need to (quick, glorious wars have a nasty habit of being neither)

    (Yes, yes, big stick ideology was used in conjunction with manifest destiny and Roosevelt was the one that invaded Cuba and engineered the state of Panama, but the premise isn't a bad one)
     
  21. Apr 27, 2009 #20

    mheslep

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    that invaded Spanish held Cuba.
     
  22. Apr 27, 2009 #21
    Are you comparing Obama to Teddy Roosevelt?

    FDR related to the economy...perhaps. But, I'd have to say Teddy was a little more "hands on" than Obama.
     
  23. Apr 27, 2009 #22

    MATLABdude

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    Sorry, not comparing Obama to Teddy Roosevelt. Just recalling his words.

    TR might've been a man's man, big game hunter and a larger than life figure, but he was also an intellectual.
     
  24. Apr 27, 2009 #23
    In what way?

    I see very few similarities in style, and the circumstances are dramatically different today than they were 70 years a go.
     
  25. Apr 30, 2009 #24
    Neville Chamberlain was an idiot. He was beat in diplomacy and when he decided to fight, he was beaten by the German military. I get very impatient with people who always bring him up when a reconciliatory instead of aggressive foreign policy is tried by a President.

    An aggressive foreign policy didn’t work too well for Hitler did it? It didn’t work too well for Napoleon and it didn’t work well for the British in 1776. Finally it didn’t work well for Bush.

    Sometimes diplomacy works and sometimes you have to fight, but countries that fight first have usually ended up in bankruptcy if you take a careful look at history.
     
  26. Apr 30, 2009 #25

    russ_watters

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    Cozying up to strong-willed adversaries tends to end with the adversaries gaining the advantage.
    Agreed.
    He overplayed his hand, but it worked pretty well for a decade. And just because it ended up failing (and only then because he got too greedy), that doesn't mean it succeeded for Neville, does it? Neville's goal wasn't defeating Hitler, it was preventing the war.

    In addition, you're looking at the wrong half of the matrix with most of your examples. There are, at least, two possible ways of acting on each side, giving four possible combinations:

    Insane criminal despot vs weakling..........insane criminal despot vs aggressive militaristic leader.
    Non-warlike leader (of any other type) vs weakling..........non-warlike leader vs aggressive militaristic leader.

    I'm not sure the descriptions are quite accurate, but I think you get the idea. You can't put Hitler or Napoleon on the bottom two boxes of the matrix: they are the guys on the top. The question of what a nice guy vs a nice guy would do isn't relevant here, it is what actions you could take to oppose the not-so-nice guys (I don't care how Obama acted when he went to Germany: only how he acted when he went to Venezuela). And right now, Obama is talking to not-so-nice guys like a weakling, as Neville did.
     
    Last edited: Apr 30, 2009
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook