News Obama diplomacy

"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.

 

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."

 

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?

 

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?

 

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."

 

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.

 

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.

 

Diplomacy is a poker game.

 

Is Obama a world class Poker-player?

 

We don't know that until the game is over, right?

 

As I posted...seems like gambling.

 

Every once in a while one has to take a step into the unknown.

 

Then we're in agreement...Obama is taking a gamble?

 

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!!

 

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)

 

that invaded Spanish held Cuba.

 

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.

 

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.

 

In what way?

I see very few similarities in style, and the circumstances are dramatically different today than they were 70 years a go.

 

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.