Rouhani and Obama Talk on the Phone.

[Displaced Flames fan]

Originally Posted by CaptainYooh

No credit is due here. Pure and selfish politics. Russia has been a power broker in Syria since the 70's supplying arms and providing all sorts of technoligical assistance to its petroleum industry in exchange for being able to influence the Middle East situation. A war would have threatened their last "friendly" regime over there.

I don't think he meant kudos. I think he meant Putin's actions/words are what prevented an American military strike.

[onetwo_threefour]

Putin's words/actions may have prevented a military strike, but it was the US administration's actions that forced Putin to take that action or sit back and watch Russian influence in the mid-east take a huge body blow. Credit is due to Putin for having the wherewithal to take action in such a way that Russia's 'blink' (as Vulcan put it) looked like a shaming of the US into backing off from a strike, but I'd be willing to bet that the Obama administration was happy with the outcome. It's only those that feel that the US has to always be the biggest, baddest, in the room that are going to be upset. In this case, the Russians manipulated a bad situation into a positive PR victory, but they still had to support the elimination of Syris's CW stockpile, which reduces the influence of their puppet in the mid-east, and which was Obama's goal.

[PIMking]

Originally Posted by ernie

It comes down to open in fighting in the GOP. The main GOP leadership does not want a shutdown and is basically happy enough with the measure including the House leader Boehner. It's the tea party that they let hijack the party that is driving this right now. I'm fine with it. The more the GOP fight with each other the more votes they lose because no one wants to vote for a party when you don't know who controls it. Let them splinter

its bad enough with our two party system but the worst thing would be a one party system in this country, or any for that matter.

[Mr.Coffee]

Originally Posted by PIMking

its bad enough with our two party system but the worst thing would be a one party system in this country, or any for that matter.

I know where you're going with this, and I agree to a certain extent.

But if a party starts to gain significant control of the House / Senate, you might just find that stuff actually gets done which for the American people would probably be sublime because your country will get a lot better.

I can't really see an obtuse abuse of power by any American administration because I doubt the American people would stand for that. Things like information spying / monitoring, where the government is claiming that it's using these powers for terrorism defence is already getting people's backs up.

It wouldn't mean democracy is over, either. You'd eventually have a party rise up and challenge in numbers. It could be good actually if the republicans splinter enough that the government becomes more in control by the Democrats.

And let's be honest, the fact the Tea Party even exists with any kind of size / credibility is borderline embarrassing for the USA. They're the crazy drunk uncle at the party shouting profanity and threats, refusing to let anyone else finish their sentences. And the problem for the Republicans is they brought them to the party.

Sorry for the off-topicness but more on topic- overall I don't think anything bad can come from diplomacy, ever. If you can better understand your counterparts position you can better overcome obstacles. If Iran is trying to manipulate the USA somehow, I am sure the Americans / British, etc. have smart people in place to read those political situations.

[PIMking]

Originally Posted by Mr.Coffee

I know where you're going with this, and I agree to a certain extent.

But if a party starts to gain significant control of the House / Senate, you might just find that stuff actually gets done which for the American people would probably be sublime because your country will get a lot better.

I can't really see an obtuse abuse of power by any American administration because I doubt the American people would stand for that. Things like information spying / monitoring, where the government is claiming that it's using these powers for terrorism defence is already getting people's backs up.

It wouldn't mean democracy is over, either. You'd eventually have a party rise up and challenge in numbers. It could be good actually if the republicans splinter enough that the government becomes more in control by the Democrats.

And let's be honest, the fact the Tea Party even exists with any kind of size / credibility is borderline embarrassing for the USA. They're the crazy drunk uncle at the party shouting profanity and threats, refusing to let anyone else finish their sentences. And the problem for the Republicans is they brought them to the party.

Sorry for the off-topicness but overall I don't think anything bad can come from diplomacy, ever. If you can better understand your counterparts position you can better overcome obstacles. If Iran is trying to manipulate the USA somehow, I am sure the Americans / British, etc. have smart people in place to read those political situations.

Things got done with Clinton, and the first term under bush, but why in the world can it not happen now? seems like the last term under bush the dems said no and acted like children only to have the pubs do it now. Nothing gets done.

I'm tired of it

[ernie]

Originally Posted by PIMking

Things got done with Clinton, and the first term under bush, but why in the world can it not happen now? seems like the last term under bush the dems said no and acted like children only to have the pubs do it now. Nothing gets done.

I'm tired of it

three words.....The Tea Party. They have no desire to actually do anything. They only want to obstruct, obstruct, obstruct never realizing that the president was given a mandate.

I have no desire to see a one party system but I do have a desire to see one of the parties get rid of the right wing fringe that is causing the issues and move to the center.

[Vulcan]

Originally Posted by Displaced Flames fan

Vladimir Putin kept the US out of a war.

right, like Obama and his moving "line in the sand" crap right? __________________

The thing is Obama achieved his aims. That the US didn't come across as the biggest and baddest is beside the point. Egos have too long ruled foreign policy. I like Obama's restraint.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by PIMking

Things got done with Clinton, and the first term under bush, but why in the world can it not happen now? seems like the last term under bush the dems said no and acted like children only to have the pubs do it now. Nothing gets done.

I'm tired of it

Things got done in Bush's first term because he had the 9/11 card by at every corner. After his first 9 months in office, did he ever not mention 9/11 whenever politicians opposed him? Of course, what it really exposed was how spineless the Democrats were.

[Manhattanboy]

Not surprised by this. After all they have one fundamental thing in common: they both hate Israel.

[Mike F]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

Things got done in Bush's first term because he had the 9/11 card by at every corner. After his first 9 months in office, did he ever not mention 9/11 whenever politicians opposed him? Of course, what it really exposed was how spineless the Democrats were.

Any time there was opposition they just increased the colour coded terror threat level.

Story

Now, we have word from the publisher of Ridge’s forthcoming memoir, The Test of Our Times, that politics was in fact very much in play in the color-coded discussions with the Department of Homeland Security before the election. According to Paul Bedard, of Washington Whispers, Ridge admits in the book that he “was pushed to raise the security alert on the eve of President Bush’s re-election, something he saw as politically motivated and worth resigning over.”

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Vulcan

The thing is Obama achieved his aims. That the US didn't come across as the biggest and baddest is beside the point. Egos have too long ruled foreign policy. I like Obama's restraint.

What aims and what restraint. The red line in the sand. Him going to his international allies asking for permission to strike? Going to the various arms of the U.S. Government and asking for permission to strike.

The only reason why he had so called restraint is because he was restrained by his own government, denied by his allies and pummeled by the Russians.

He deserves very little credit he was paralyzed internationally and in his own back yard.

Lets not give him credit that he didn't deserve.

Just like he's being used by the Iranian Government who figured it out by installing a public relations bonanza as their president while not changing any of their domestic or foreign policies.

[Vulcan]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

What aims and what restraint. The red line in the sand. Him going to his international allies asking for permission to strike? Going to the various arms of the U.S. Government and asking for permission to strike.

The only reason why he had so called restraint is because he was restrained by his own government, denied by his allies and pummeled by the Russians.

He deserves very little credit he was paralyzed internationally and in his own back yard.

Lets not give him credit that he didn't deserve.

Just like he's being used by the Iranian Government who figured it out by installing a public relations bonanza as their president while not changing any of their domestic or foreign policies.

His aims? He's going to get rid of Syria's chemical weapons and avoid getting the US into a war. Getting rid of Assad is still on the agenda but patience is a virtue.

He didn't need anyone else to give him permission, he could have ordered the attack at anytime. That he wanted to form a consensus is a good thing after the Bush years rash actions ruined the USA's reputation and finances.

Opening up dialogue with the enemy is a good thing no matter how you like to paint it. Nixon did the same with China and didn't look particularly strong while doing it but China is no longer an enemy but more a competitor. You want to make everything into an ego trip by scoring points of one upmanship, man can't afford to keep on playing these games.

[CaptainCrunch]

Sorry I don't buy it.

I think he looked very weak. Putin stared him down and Obama backed down. Make no mistake, Obama wanted to strike, he was ready and locked and loaded and except for France nobody bought what he was selling internationally at home.

Obama had no aim or plan in this. He spouted about his red line months ago and Syria didn't care. They basically laughed at him. The only reason why they gave up those weapons (which they haven't really done yet is because Russia lowered the hammer).

I don't think he deserves any credit in this.

At the same time, until Iran stops executing homo sexuals, releases their political prisoners, stops funding terror groups and opens up their nuclear program for inspection, then call me skeptical.

This whole thing by Iran basically selecting this president to put a friendly face on a country ruled by religous zealots is a brilliant way to take the pressure off of Iran and to get the American's off of their backs about their support for Syria's odorous regime and their continued work on their weapons program.

Its kind of like putting a good looking articulate guy in charge of the Klan, it doesn't change the organizations goals, all it does is make them look more sympathetic.

My gut is that Obama is looking for any kind of victory and hopes this passes mustard.

[Vulcan]

You're too hung up on appearances and not looking at the results. Putin is just another #######, with no idea of doing good. I don't see how anyone can give him any kudows for bending over, and make no mistake he's the one who blinked.

and yeah, I don't trust the Iranian's either but talks could lead to a lessening of tensions and you have to take the opening while there is a chance. You can't dismiss it and than regret it.

[Northendzone]

wonder if they facebooked each other first

[Rathji]

You know, I think Obama comes out even on this.

He doesn't get to look strong internationally, but he gets what he wants in the removal of chemical weapons.

Actually, factoring in the 'not going to war' part, he doesn't have to deal with that, in terms of budget etc so he really comes out ahead (or at least avoids losing ground).

[Plett25]

As far as I can tell, these were Obama's goals:

1. Eliminate Syria's chemical weapons
2. Avoid another war

You can argue that he appeared weak, or whatever, but at the end of the day both of Obama's goals have been achieved, and as a bonus he dropped the whole mess in Putin's lap.

That's a big win in the real world, but in the FOX/CNN/MSNBC world of soundbites, it is whatever you want it to be.

[CaptainCrunch]

What the media thinks is only a small part of it. In China and Russia and every tin pot state they know that America is weakened and their president is indecisive and has few true friends.

America's influence in the world is sliding.

And now he's being sucked in by Iran's version of Iraq's propaganda minister.

[onetwo_threefour]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

What the media thinks is only a small part of it. In China and Russia and every tin pot state they know that America is weakened and their president is indecisive and has few true friends.

America's influence in the world is sliding.

And now he's being sucked in by Iran's version of Iraq's propaganda minister.

Your first paragraph is your conclusion about what the rest of the world leaders are thinking. Given Obama's prvious willingness to use force and take decisive action on foreign policy, such as drone strikes and the bin laden assasination, even if you're right about this particular incident, Obama has some capital to spend. I personally think your conclusions about what Russian and Chinese leaders think is wrong and that they know that Obama got his way.

Your second paragraph is true, but it's hardly Obama's fault. If anything he's working to rebuild relationships and recover influence damaged buy unilateral actions of past administrations. America's influence is waning because America can't get it's own house in order and presents a weak front to the world. That can just as much be laid at the feet of the Republicans who strive to make government fail and look weak.

Your last sentence is just another editorial opinion. It's hardly apparent that he's being 'sucked in' by virtue of agreeing to speak with Rouhani. It's called diplomacy. Not all diplomacy needs to come from the barrel of a gun.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by onetwo_threefour

Your first paragraph is your conclusion about what the rest of the world leaders are thinking. Given Obama's prvious willingness to use force and take decisive action on foreign policy, such as drone strikes and the bin laden assasination, even if you're right about this particular incident, Obama has some capital to spend. I personally think your conclusions about what Russian and Chinese leaders think is wrong and that they know that Obama got his way.

We'll have to agree to disagree. the Bin Laden assasination really showed how little influence the U.S. has in that region, and I would argue that its dropped even more since W Bush left office. I don't think there's any question that the Pakistan government knew he was there and continually lied to the U.S. while taking their money.

I would argue that among Western allies Obama and the U.S. have seen an influence and even a respect drop. In the Middle East, he's certainly gained no new friends or influence, and lost influence and trust in Israel.

Putin knows that he busted Obama in the chops pretty good in the Syria thing. The Chinese have pretty much had the American's over a barrel for years. And with the decline of the U.S. Military budget wise, their influence in the China seas is pretty low.

The Syrian people that are being shelled and killed daily are pretty anti Obama, as are the moderate rebel groups who are now feeling alone and abandoned. Even Asaad pretty much publicly laughed at the American's and didn't fall into line until Putin laid down the law with them.

It would be interesting to know the origins of the more noxious weapons that Syria used.

Originally Posted by onetwo_threefour

Your second paragraph is true, but it's hardly Obama's fault. If anything he's working to rebuild relationships and recover influence damaged buy unilateral actions of past administrations. America's influence is waning because America can't get it's own house in order and presents a weak front to the world. That can just as much be laid at the feet of the Republicans who strive to make government fail and look weak.

At the end of the day, the very strong relationships that the American's had with Britain and Germany for example at the end of the Bush Presidency imho are weaker today. I would argue that the American Canadian relationship has taken a serious hit as well. In the Middle East, the American's haven't had a solid solid relationshipi with Saudi Arabia (which I actually don't mind). I would also argue that the U.S. foreign policy influence is at a weaker point now then it was at the end of the Bush presidency.

Originally Posted by onetwo_threefour

Your last sentence is just another editorial opinion. It's hardly apparent that he's being 'sucked in' by virtue of agreeing to speak with Rouhani. It's called diplomacy. Not all diplomacy needs to come from the barrel of a gun.

I wouldn't call it diplomacy. I would call it a delaying game and a clever one by Iran where they put a friendly face in front of a pretty virulent government. Dimplomacy means there's an end game. If Obama gets the Iranians to properly open up their nuclear program, halt their construction of refinement and centrifuge units then he gets credit from me. At the end of the day none of that is going to happen. Its a delaying tactic under a gentlehanded front piece.

And yes your right it is editorializing. But I give credit to Iran for a brilliant strategy, it would be equivalent to the Tom Clancy book when the Muslim protestors stopped their violent protests in Israel and started following Martin Luthor Kings playbook.

These views might make me a bad guy on this board. But as bad as Bush is, Obama has done little to help the American's power to project strength world wide and they've been supplanted. Not militarily, but as a nation of influence. Part of that is certainly W's fault, but part of that is certainly Obama's. The last two presidents haven't been good for America.