Heard on NPR this morning that Obama is going to meet with Medvedev to request that "reset" on US-Russian relations.
The Russian foreign minister, of course, said that Russia would be happy to see a change in US-Russian relations, but of course all of that change would need to come from the US side, seeing as it is the US who fucked it all up to begin with of course.
Starting with getting rid of this missile defense system, and of course no more NATO expansion.
Of course, it is all bullshit - Russia has nothing to gain from getting chummy with the US and plenty to lose, so they are just playing him for the fool.
This is going to be embarrassing.
Why would he possibly want to do this?
This sounds sufficiently awful that I kind of want to hear more, since I didn't think Obama was that stupid.
Campaign promises. He doesn't seem to realize he isn't running for President anymore, but is supposed to actually... you know... *be* President at this juncture.
Well Hillary went & told Mexico that their crime problems were our fault, so this would kind of mesh with what appears to be our foreign policy. Maybe Obama should apologize to Putinvedev for us winning the Cold War?
Quote from: derspiess on March 31, 2009, 09:21:18 AM
Well Hillary went & told Mexico that their crime problems were our fault
Well we certainly have a large responsibility for Mexico's crime problems but that does tend to overstate it a bit.
But then did she really say that they were our fault?
Quote from: Caliga on March 31, 2009, 09:18:04 AM
Campaign promises. He doesn't seem to realize he isn't running for President anymore, but is supposed to actually... you know... *be* President at this juncture.
And he is trying a different tack with the Russians, our past policies were not exactly a smashing success we should be falling over ourselves to emulate. Might as well try something different and see how it turns out I guess.
I hope he sells out the Poles.
Quote from: Ed Anger on March 31, 2009, 09:39:42 AM
I hope he sells out the Poles.
You beat me to the punch. Nothing would be finer than watching footage of the Red Army rolling back into Warsaw.
Quote from: Valmy on March 31, 2009, 09:38:13 AM
And he is trying a different tack with the Russians, our past policies were not exactly a smashing success we should be falling over ourselves to emulate. Might as well try something different and see how it turns out I guess.
I'm afraid that Russia as it is right now is incompatible with US, so good relations will not be possible no matter what. That said, I don't think Obama is being super-naive either, he has a long history of proving to be more ruthless and calculating than he lets on.
Quote from: Valmy on March 31, 2009, 09:35:51 AM
But then did she really say that they were our fault?
That's the way it came across to me.
http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSTRE52O5RF20090325?feedType=RSS&feedName=topNews&rpc=22&sp=true
Quote"Our insatiable demand for illegal drugs fuels the drug trade. Our inability to prevent weapons from being illegally smuggled across the border to arm these criminals causes the death of police officers, soldiers and civilians," Clinton told reporters during her flight to Mexico City.
"I feel very strongly we have a co-responsibility."
So much for the tough-talking hard-nosed SoS we were supposed to have gotten. It's one thing to make casual mention certain U.S. factors that contribute to the problem-- this amounts to a mea culpa IMO.
One thing Dems are awfully good at is apologizing to foreigners :rolleyes:
Quote from: DGuller on March 31, 2009, 09:47:07 AM
That said, I don't think Obama is being super-naive either, he has a long history of proving to be more ruthless and calculating than he lets on.
No shit. Look what he did to our British allies.
Quote from: Valmy on March 31, 2009, 09:38:13 AM
Quote from: Caliga on March 31, 2009, 09:18:04 AM
Campaign promises. He doesn't seem to realize he isn't running for President anymore, but is supposed to actually... you know... *be* President at this juncture.
And he is trying a different tack with the Russians, our past policies were not exactly a smashing success we should be falling over ourselves to emulate. Might as well try something different and see how it turns out I guess.
This is making the same error that Obama is making - assuming that the result of "past policies" are completely based on what the US has done.
Why do you say our past policies in regards to Russia where not a smashing success, such that radical change to this kissing ass mode is needed?
I am not sure I would argue that they were a smashing success, but at the same time I would argue that US-Russian relations are mostly based on Russian actions and incredible inconsistency. These latest attempts from our side, IMO, are mostly driven by domestic politics, as are previous Russian aggression and intransigence.
So now we are going to combine a US policy largely driven by domestic concerns with a Russian policy largely driven by their domestic concerns. I don't think that can possibly end well.
Quote from: DGuller on March 31, 2009, 09:47:07 AM
Quote from: Valmy on March 31, 2009, 09:38:13 AM
And he is trying a different tack with the Russians, our past policies were not exactly a smashing success we should be falling over ourselves to emulate. Might as well try something different and see how it turns out I guess.
I'm afraid that Russia as it is right now is incompatible with US, so good relations will not be possible no matter what. That said, I don't think Obama is being super-naive either, he has a long history of proving to be more ruthless and calculating than he lets on.
I hope you are right.
But I got burned by hoping for the best with The Shrubbery, and assuming eh cannot possibly be as naive a he is letting on. I am hesitant to go down that road again.
Quote from: Berkut on March 31, 2009, 09:58:55 AM
I am not sure I would argue that they were a smashing success, but at the same time I would argue that US-Russian relations are mostly based on Russian actions and incredible inconsistency. These latest attempts from our side, IMO, are mostly driven by domestic politics, as are previous Russian aggression and intransigence.
So now we are going to combine a US policy largely driven by domestic concerns with a Russian policy largely driven by their domestic concerns. I don't think that can possibly end well.
You could be right about that one. I frankly do not see what difference it will make unless we start making real concessions but I do not see that happening. So I am rather apathetic. But anyway why not say nice things to the Russians? He is traveling around distributing warm fuzzies anyway, might as well pass out some warm fuzzies to Moscow.
Quote from: derspiess on March 31, 2009, 09:52:15 AM
That's the way it came across to me.
Well she is fucking spot on. We are absolutely co-reponsible for how fucked up the border area is and anybody who says otherwise is an idiot or a liar or both. Do you think differently and why? We have been ignoring the border forever and I have no idea why. Bush was supposed to work on the actually giving a shit about Mexico part in DC but he got distracted by the, IMO, far smaller problem of our Middle Eastern issues.
QuoteOne thing Dems are awfully good at is apologizing to foreigners
Far better than what both parties are great at: ignoring huge problems close to home to chase insane dreams in the old world. You talk like this is some sort of problem in Cambodia or some shit instead of something that has a dramatic effect on tens of millions on both sides of the border.
Quote from: Valmy on March 31, 2009, 09:38:13 AM
Quote from: Caliga on March 31, 2009, 09:18:04 AM
Campaign promises. He doesn't seem to realize he isn't running for President anymore, but is supposed to actually... you know... *be* President at this juncture.
And he is trying a different tack with the Russians, our past policies were not exactly a smashing success we should be falling over ourselves to emulate. Might as well try something different and see how it turns out I guess.
Well I think it's because Russia's potentially more troublesome than they've been for a while. The fall in the price of oil reduces their ability to cause trouble, perhaps, but it seems that it could equally spur them on (to distract from a dreadful economic situation, throw a bit of weight around and so on).
At the moment they're weaker than they've been for at least 5 years. That strikes me as a relatively good time to start talking. It's not, after all, as if there aren't any shared interests.
QuoteThis is making the same error that Obama is making - assuming that the result of "past policies" are completely based on what the US has done.
I think he's assuming it's partially based on US/Western actions, partially on Russia's domestic situation and partially on Russia's relatively strong economic position (strong in comparison with the preceding 10 years). All of those could change right now.
Quote from: Valmy on March 31, 2009, 10:02:38 AM
You could be right about that one. I frankly do not see what difference it will make unless we start making real concessions but I do not see that happening. So I am rather apathetic. But anyway why not say nice things to the Russians? He is traveling around distributing warm fuzzies anyway, might as well pass out some warm fuzzies to Moscow.
Because Moscow will take his warm fuzzies, scrunch them into a ball, then shove them right up our ass.
They know how to play the international politics game to their advantage, and they have already shafted the US and will continue to do so at every opportunity (see their desire to sell S-300 SAMs to Iran, shutting down US airbases supporting Afghanistan).
Warm fuzzies are ammunition. Don't give them any. They are not our friends, they don't want to be our friends. In fact, even if they did want to be our friends, their own domestic political situation would not allow it -they *require* an external enemy, and we are it.
The idea that all the warm fuzzies in the world will change this is naive - it is the opposite, warm fuzzies will make it worse.
Quote from: Berkut on March 31, 2009, 10:00:16 AM
But I got burned by hoping for the best with The Shrubbery, and assuming eh cannot possibly be as naive a he is letting on. I am hesitant to go down that road again.
I don't think, diplomatically, Obama's been that naive so far. It seems to me his foreign policy is largely a continuation of Bush term 2 when there was a far more realist and pragmatic tone. If anything the realism's increased.
Quote from: Berkut on March 31, 2009, 10:00:16 AM
Quote from: DGuller on March 31, 2009, 09:47:07 AM
Quote from: Valmy on March 31, 2009, 09:38:13 AM
And he is trying a different tack with the Russians, our past policies were not exactly a smashing success we should be falling over ourselves to emulate. Might as well try something different and see how it turns out I guess.
I'm afraid that Russia as it is right now is incompatible with US, so good relations will not be possible no matter what. That said, I don't think Obama is being super-naive either, he has a long history of proving to be more ruthless and calculating than he lets on.
I hope you are right.
But I got burned by hoping for the best with The Shrubbery, and assuming eh cannot possibly be as naive a he is letting on. I am hesitant to go down that road again.
Then why the fuck did you vote for him?
Quote from: Valmy on March 31, 2009, 10:06:12 AM
Quote from: derspiess on March 31, 2009, 09:52:15 AM
That's the way it came across to me.
Well she is fucking spot on. We are absolutely co-reponsible for how fucked up the border area is and anybody who says otherwise is an idiot or a liar or both. Do you think differently and why? We have been ignoring the border forever and I have no idea why. Bush was supposed to work on the actually giving a shit about Mexico part in DC but he got distracted by the, IMO, far smaller problem of our Middle Eastern issues.
We are responsible for creating the climate in which the drug lords are possible - that doesn't make them inevitable. We are a necessary, but not sufficient condition.
Quote from: Berkut on March 31, 2009, 10:07:34 AM
Because Moscow will take his warm fuzzies, scrunch them into a ball, then shove them right up our ass.
Or rather it will make no difference what-so-ever in US-Russian relations. If there is any positive outcome at all it will be how the exchange plays out to other observers.
Quote from: Razgovory on March 31, 2009, 10:08:20 AM
Then why the fuck did you vote for him?
Sarah Palin.
And I knew then that this was going to be the big negative to that vote - an inexperienced, naive, and out of his depth Obama would likely take a couple years before he realizes that that warm fuzzy feeling is Putin fucking him in the ass.
Quote from: Berkut on March 31, 2009, 10:09:20 AM
We are responsible for creating the climate in which the drug lords are possible - that doesn't make them inevitable. We are a necessary, but not sufficient condition.
I did not say we were totally responsible. But we need to get really serious about what is going on over there. It is almost like Mexico is the sideshow and what goes on on the other side of the world is in our back yard judging by how much attention this issue gets.
Quote from: Valmy on March 31, 2009, 10:11:39 AM
Quote from: Berkut on March 31, 2009, 10:09:20 AM
We are responsible for creating the climate in which the drug lords are possible - that doesn't make them inevitable. We are a necessary, but not sufficient condition.
I did not say we were totally responsible. But we need to get really serious about what is going on over there. It is almost like Mexico is the sideshow and what goes on on the other side of the world is in our back yard judging by how much attention this issue gets.
That I can agree with.
We spend billions per month trying to reduce violence in Iraq, but we ahve a situation right enxt door that is in some ways just as bad (of not worse) and arguably much more our own problem that we appear to be doing very little about.
On the other hand, I don't know how much Mexico would allow us to do, or how much we could actually do about it, at least realistically (no, we aren't going to legalize crack).
Quote from: Sheilbh on March 31, 2009, 10:08:10 AM
Quote from: Berkut on March 31, 2009, 10:00:16 AM
But I got burned by hoping for the best with The Shrubbery, and assuming eh cannot possibly be as naive a he is letting on. I am hesitant to go down that road again.
I don't think, diplomatically, Obama's been that naive so far. It seems to me his foreign policy is largely a continuation of Bush term 2 when there was a far more realist and pragmatic tone. If anything the realism's increased.
The idea that the major problem between the US and Russia can be solved by a simple "reset" of relations is incredibly naive. It presumes that the primary problem is nothing more than the previous US assholes and their inept handling of the poor Russians.
That is hardly realistic.
And the idea that the proper approach to the Russians is one of supplication - this entire tone of "Hey, we are sorry you don't like us, what can we do to make you think we are cool again?" is incredibly naive.
Quote from: Berkut on March 31, 2009, 10:18:00 AM
And the idea that the proper approach to the Russians is one of supplication - this entire tone of "Hey, we are sorry you don't like us, what can we do to make you think we are cool again?" is incredibly naive.
It certainly appears that way on the surface. I just do not see what harm it could do at this point.
Quote from: derspiess on March 31, 2009, 09:52:15 AM
One thing Dems are awfully good at is apologizing to foreigners :rolleyes:
Yeah, like when apologized to the Chinese for them ramming one of their jets into one of our planes.
Quote from: Valmy on March 31, 2009, 10:19:27 AM
Quote from: Berkut on March 31, 2009, 10:18:00 AM
And the idea that the proper approach to the Russians is one of supplication - this entire tone of "Hey, we are sorry you don't like us, what can we do to make you think we are cool again?" is incredibly naive.
It certainly appears that way on the surface. I just do not see what harm it could do at this point.
Isn't it obvious?
The harm it does is that they respond with "Why yes, we want improved relations as well. Please to be pulling your missile defense system out of Poland, quit talking about more NATO countries, and have a chat with the Ukraine about gas, kthxbye!" and then we look like the assholes when we refuse to "compromise" on this reasonable issues.
After all, we said we were interested in improving relations, right?
Note to the President: Russia is region code 5.
Quote from: Berkut on March 31, 2009, 10:18:00 AM
The idea that the major problem between the US and Russia can be solved by a simple "reset" of relations is incredibly naive. It presumes that the primary problem is nothing more than the previous US assholes and their inept handling of the poor Russians.
The primary problem was a number of circumstances, including the previous US assholes, that existed 12 months ago and no longer do. Reset's a nice bit of PR, but is there an opportunity for changing the tone if not the nature of US-Russia relations? I think so.
QuoteAnd the idea that the proper approach to the Russians is one of supplication - this entire tone of "Hey, we are sorry you don't like us, what can we do to make you think we are cool again?" is incredibly naive.
Well I'm not sure what you mean. You highlight two things to begin with: getting rid of missile defence and expanding NATO.
From what I understand the Bush Administration's always said missile defence was about Iran not Russia. The Russians don't like it because they think that's nonsense (and it would probably bounce them into spending ridiculous amounts of money to develop a similar programme for very little reason). What the Obama admin's done is simply take the Bush line to its next logical step. If it's about Iran and the Russians, the only major country helping Iran, can stop the Iranians getting a nuke then why shouldn't the US dump missile defence? Is it worth it, in the long run? And is it some unverifiable deal based on hot air? I think it's potentially worth it and I think it's a deal that involves at least as much of a Russian concession as an American one. I don't see much supplication.
On NATO I'm not sure what you mean, Obama, last week, said countries that wish to join NATO will still be able to and that 'reinvigorated' ties with Russia won't stop that. Personally I think that's balls for two reasons.
The first is that I think the remaining eligible states won't be good for NATO. They'll either fall into the camp of useless, givens. That is states the West can already be assumed to be willing to fight with that would only be included in NATO to poke Russia in the eye. Sweden, Austria or, God forbid, Finland, for example. The other states either aren't ready (Ukraine), willing (Belarus) or worth it (Georgia). The core of NATO is a self-defence alliance, not a global policeman or a great force for humanitarian good. Unless we're willing to send all our force into fellow NATO members' territories to defend them from aggression then they shouldn't be in the alliance. I think a lot of people know that.
The second reason is that the French have suddenly become important and full NATO members again. They are fiercely against any further expansion (indeed they think Russia should have a veto over any further expansion). The French position is simply that last one. NATO, in their view, doesn't exist for missions like Afghanistan or Kosovo, it doesn't exist to deliver aid, it's a mutual defence organisation and they don't think there are any nations who would add much, or be worth defending left. Given that to join NATO you have to meet criteria that any member state has a right to propose (and it must be accepted) I think further expansion is unlikely unless it's agreed to by the Kremlin and Elysee.
So, in Europe (and they have to be European states to be accepted), who else do we really want to join? We're expanding in the Balkans, with the exception of Serbia and the Russians are fine with that. The only countries left are Scandinavia, Austria, Switzerland, Moldavia, Belarus, Ukraine, Cyprus, Ireland and, arguably, Georgia and the Caucasus states.
Even promision not to expand NATO, which hasn't happened, seems to me an easy and low-cost promise to make. The heavy lifting's been done between 1990 and 2004.
Quote from: Valmy on March 31, 2009, 10:06:12 AM
Quote from: derspiess on March 31, 2009, 09:52:15 AM
That's the way it came across to me.
Well she is fucking spot on. We are absolutely co-reponsible for how fucked up the border area is and anybody who says otherwise is an idiot or a liar or both. Do you think differently and why? We have been ignoring the border forever and I have no idea why. Bush was supposed to work on the actually giving a shit about Mexico part in DC but he got distracted by the, IMO, far smaller problem of our Middle Eastern issues.
No, she's not. Mexicans need to keep their own house in order, and that is the message we should have sent.
Of course, we can do a whole lot more in terms of border patrolling & enforcement, and we absolutely should. But I don't see that happening, what with the administration kowtowing to the pro-illegal immigrant groups & whatnot.
Arguing that we should not expand NATO because to do so does not meet our needs is one thing - giving Moscow a veto on the decision is something else entirely.
Your post is apologism - just justification for why kowtowing to the Russians and doing as they tell us really isn't such a terrible idea.
"Trading" missile defense for Russian help in stopping Iran from getting nukes is a terrible idea - for no reason other than that Russia is and will simply make a deal with us, then turn around and do whatever the fuck they want anyway. It is a pipe dream to believe that they will actually do ANYTHING that is not explicitly in their own narrow interests, no matter what deal they "make" outside those interests. This fantasy that the only thing stopping Iran is Russia, and if we can only get them on board all our problems with Iran will go away is as silly as the entire "Gee, lets make it all better by pushing the reset button!" crap.
They said they supported the NATO mission in Afghanistan, then turned around and pressured Kyrgyzstan to shut down the US airbase doing exactly that. They say they don't want Iran to build a nuke, then turn around and offer to sell them advanced SAMs to defend those nuke sites. They cannot be dealt with in good faith, because they are not capable in interested in dealing in good faith.
As far as NATO is concerned, it is whatever we say it is - there is nothing written in stone that makes it a purely defensive arrangement. It is, if anything, a check to Russian aggression, and if adding more countries is necessary as a means of checking Russia, then we would be fools to give up that negotiating chip in some naive dream that if only we give up anything we can pressure Russia with, then we won't need to pressure them anymore.
So no, I don't think promises not to expand NATO are "low-cost". I don't think any kind of promise based on soem silly idea of goodwill and brotherly love is "low-cost". They certainly are not approaching their relationship with the US in any such naive manner.
Quote from: derspiess on March 31, 2009, 10:46:47 AM
No, she's not. Mexicans need to keep their own house in order, and that is the message we should have sent.
Of course, we can do a whole lot more in terms of border patrolling & enforcement, and we absolutely should. But I don't see that happening, what with the administration kowtowing to the pro-illegal immigrant groups & whatnot.
Nonsense Mexico has been asking for further assistance for years. They cannot control the supply to the largest drug market in the world with a third world economy! We cannot even make a serious dent in the drug trade despite a twenty year old 'war on drugs'. What ridiculous thing do you demand Mexico to do next? Colonize Mars? Cure cancer? Build seven cities of gold? Besides this is just as much our house being poorly managed as their house. If we took care of business the problem in Mexico would be much more manageable.
And you are right that the Democrats are unlikely to properly control the border because neither party seems particularly interested in actually doing that, unfortunately. It is simply too politically difficult. It is far better to burn up all our political capital and spend billions doing things like fighting land wars in Asia.
We should have conquered mexico back in '48.
Quote from: Sheilbh on March 31, 2009, 10:37:44 AM
Quote from: Berkut on March 31, 2009, 10:18:00 AM
The idea that the major problem between the US and Russia can be solved by a simple "reset" of relations is incredibly naive. It presumes that the primary problem is nothing more than the previous US assholes and their inept handling of the poor Russians.
The primary problem was a number of circumstances, including the previous US assholes, that existed 12 months ago and no longer do. Reset's a nice bit of PR, but is there an opportunity for changing the tone if not the nature of US-Russia relations? I think so.
There is always an opportunity to reset the tone - the naive part is the assumption that the tone has been set by the US, and it is up to us to reset it, or that we can do so unilaterlally - that it will get better if only the US stops being such assholes.
The reality is that Bush kissed Russian ass in his first term. He bent over backward trying to get them onboard with the entire "Russia is part and parcel of Europe and by extension the West, and we should all be together..." crap. Russia kicked him in the teeth in thanks.
The "tone" has been set by Moscow, not Washington. Having Obama and Clinton go crawling to them begging forgiveness and another chance is pathetic, and will be seen as weak. Putin is an opportunist of the highest order, and will take advantage of it, and already is by making new demands in return for this completely fake "reset".
Quote from: PDH on March 31, 2009, 10:53:46 AM
We should have conquered mexico back in '48.
That border with Belize and Hondoras is certainly alot easier to build a fence across.
Quote from: Berkut on March 31, 2009, 10:49:45 AM
Arguing that we should not expand NATO because to do so does not meet our needs is one thing - giving Moscow a veto on the decision is something else entirely.
Your post is apologism - just justification for why kowtowing to the Russians and doing as they tell us really isn't such a terrible idea.
"Trading" missile defense for Russian help in stopping Iran from getting nukes is a terrible idea - for no reason other than that Russia is and will simply make a deal with us, then turn around and do whatever the fuck they want anyway. It is a pipe dream to believe that they will actually do ANYTHING that is not explicitly in their own narrow interests, no matter what deal they "make" outside those interests. This fantasy that the only thing stopping Iran is Russia, and if we can only get them on board all our problems with Iran will go away is as silly as the entire "Gee, lets make it all better by pushing the reset button!" crap.
Would the technology worked on so far suddenly go away? If explained to the Poles and the Czechs would the missile sites? They renege on the deal then missile defence comes back. I don't see the problem.
QuoteAs far as NATO is concerned, it is whatever we say it is - there is nothing written in stone that makes it a purely defensive arrangement. It is, if anything, a check to Russian aggression, and if adding more countries is necessary as a means of checking Russia, then we would be fools to give up that negotiating chip in some naive dream that if only we give up anything we can pressure Russia with, then we won't need to pressure them anymore.
Actually the NATO charter says it's a defensive alliance. We've expanded its remit since the Cold War to try and give it a new, more modern raison d'etre. Personally I don't think it needs one. I think it makes plenty of sense to have a defensive alliance in Europe. And as it's a defensive alliances I think member states should only be added if we're willing to defend them absolutely in the case of war, not to 'check Russia'. And I think the last bit that if give up anything we won't ever need to pressure them again is just a straw man.
QuoteSo no, I don't think promises not to expand NATO are "low-cost". I don't think any kind of promise based on soem silly idea of goodwill and brotherly love is "low-cost". They certainly are not approaching their relationship with the US in any such naive manner.
It's not based on a silly idea of goodwill or brotherly love.
We're going to expand to the Balkans and the Russians are okay with that.
Any further expansion will have to pass the hurdle of the French government who, quite sensibly, don't really see the point of any of the possible other members joining.
So, apart from the Balkans there won't be any further NATO expansion.
Promising that, for the forseeable future, costs, well it costs what exactly? How is naive to base seemingly idealistic sounding policies on the real world rather than building castles in the clouds on the basis of a very illusory realism?
What terrible concessions has Obama made so far?
It's one thing to make conciliatory statements - wake me up when Obama hands over the Sudetenland or lets troops back in the Rhineland.
Quote from: Berkut on March 31, 2009, 10:09:48 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on March 31, 2009, 10:08:20 AM
Then why the fuck did you vote for him?
Sarah Palin.
And I knew then that this was going to be the big negative to that vote - an inexperienced, naive, and out of his depth Obama would likely take a couple years before he realizes that that warm fuzzy feeling is Putin fucking him in the ass.
Yeah, I worry about the same thing. Pres Bush was suckered by Russia. I kind of think that Pres Obama will get suckered a few times, then realize differently about some relations issues. It may be too late by then on some issues, as the damage may be done. Even worse is if the same attitude prevails and the olive branches keep going out, and keep getting used/abused.
Quote from: Berkut on March 31, 2009, 10:54:09 AMThere is always an opportunity to reset the tone - the naive part is the assumption that the tone has been set by the US, and it is up to us to reset it, or that we can do so unilaterlally - that it will get better if only the US stops being such assholes.
Well, actually, Clinton and her counterpart pressed the 'reset' button, so I think in terms of images it was 'we're both going to work together better now'. I didn't say the tone was set by the US, but that part of it was. That's all.
QuoteThe reality is that Bush kissed Russian ass in his first term. He bent over backward trying to get them onboard with the entire "Russia is part and parcel of Europe and by extension the West, and we should all be together..." crap. Russia kicked him in the teeth in thanks.
Yes. He bent over backwards and talked about Putin's soul, while, at the same time, presiding over the largest ever NATO expansion, including 3 countries that bordered with Russia. There was also some nastiness over Iraq. I think Bush was superficially chummy while actually continuing the Clinton policy of taking advantage of Russia's comparative weakness. It wasn't a bad policy.
Of course the Russians were happier with Bush's second term because they had more oil and were able to play the great I am. They were accorded a respect and importance that they hadn't enjoyed for 15 years.
QuoteThe "tone" has been set by Moscow, not Washington. Having Obama and Clinton go crawling to them begging forgiveness and another chance is pathetic, and will be seen as weak. Putin is an opportunist of the highest order, and will take advantage of it, and already is by making new demands in return for this completely fake "reset".
What demands has he made? I don't understand the begging or the patheticness. They've met them in Geneva and had an overload button to press, a couple of PR plays, at best. Meanwhile there's what seems to me a highly plausible deal on the table over Iran.
The tone has been the product of a number of circumstances and events and is more possible to change now than it has been for the past 5 years.
And to give an example of the power individual states (like France) have over membership, Greece has repeatedly blocked Macedonian membership because of the naming dispute. So, presumably, they'll never be in until they change the name of their country :lol:
Ah, another of Berkut's chest beating session is underway.
What part of "America can't rule alone" is so difficult to understand ? :rolleyes:
G.
Quote from: Grallon on March 31, 2009, 11:08:33 AM
Ah, another of Berkut's chest beating session is underway.
What part of "America can't rule alone" is so difficult to understand ? :rolleyes:
G.
I don't think that's the issue. Issue seems to be how best for Pres Obama to deal with other nations, the difficult relations, so that he doesn't put the US at disadvantage. Doesn't get taken. Pres Bush was certainly suckered by the Russkies, crafty dudes that they are!
Quote from: KRonn on March 31, 2009, 11:13:34 AM
I don't think that's the issue. Issue seems to be how best for Pres Obama to deal with other nations, the difficult relations, so that he doesn't put the US at disadvantage. Doesn't get taken. Pres Bush was certainly suckered by the Russkies, crafty dudes that they are!
At a disadvantage ? Since when meeting and listening to what others have to say puts one at a disadvantage ? Many seem to assume he'll get off the plane and start rolling over at the first pretext ! That's an absurd estimation at this point.
I know this new attitude goes against something deeply ingrained in american psyches: we are the greatest and should be obeyed. Well here's a newflash:
- the russians have a large enough nuclear arsenal they could wipe you off;
- the chinese, one of your most dangerous rivals, own a great chunk of America's external debt; and that's not mentioning they provide americans with a lot of the manufactured products consumed daily;
- the muslim world, whose multitudes hate your collective guts, control *the* strategic resource upon which all of America's economy is dependant.
Being aware of these facts is not demonstrating weakness; it's rather a proof of lucidity.
G.
Quote from: derspiess on March 31, 2009, 10:46:47 AM
Of course, we can do a whole lot more in terms of border patrolling & enforcement, and we absolutely should. But I don't see that happening, what with the administration kowtowing to the pro-illegal immigrant groups & whatnot.
Of course not. We couldn't do it with the most right-wing pro-use-of-military-force US government in maybe a century, so any administration less in love with guns is not likely to do more than the one most in love with guns. However, we "can do a lot more" in some magical fashion that has eluded everyone for decades, and "we absolutely should" if we just had a clue.
The alternative, of course, is the much more cost-effective one of interdicting the drug traffic on a number of planes, but from some reason the Fortress Amerikka types never see that as a viable option.
Quote from: grumbler on March 31, 2009, 11:48:52 AM
Quote from: derspiess on March 31, 2009, 10:46:47 AM
Of course, we can do a whole lot more in terms of border patrolling & enforcement, and we absolutely should. But I don't see that happening, what with the administration kowtowing to the pro-illegal immigrant groups & whatnot.
Of course not. We couldn't do it with the most right-wing pro-use-of-military-force US government in maybe a century, so any administration less in love with guns is not likely to do more than the one most in love with guns. However, we "can do a lot more" in some magical fashion that has eluded everyone for decades, and "we absolutely should" if we just had a clue.
Maybe you & I had different administrations. Bush was a gigantic wuss when it came to dealing with the Mexican border, illegal aliens, etc.
Quote from: Grallon on March 31, 2009, 11:32:21 AM
Quote from: KRonn on March 31, 2009, 11:13:34 AM
I don't think that's the issue. Issue seems to be how best for Pres Obama to deal with other nations, the difficult relations, so that he doesn't put the US at disadvantage. Doesn't get taken. Pres Bush was certainly suckered by the Russkies, crafty dudes that they are!
At a disadvantage ? Since when meeting and listening to what others have to say puts one at a disadvantage ? Many seem to assume he'll get off the plane and start rolling over at the first pretext ! That's an absurd estimation at this point.
I know this new attitude goes against something deeply ingrained in american psyches: we are the greatest and should be obeyed. Well here's a newflash:
- the russians have a large enough nuclear arsenal they could wipe you off;
- the chinese, one of your most dangerous rivals, own a great chunk of America's external debt; and that's not mentioning they provide americans with a lot of the manufactured products consumed daily;
- the muslim world, whose multitudes hate your collective guts, control *the* strategic resource upon which all of America's economy is dependant.
Being aware of these facts is not demonstrating weakness; it's rather a proof of lucidity.
G.
Shilebh, you were mentioning strawmen?
Quotethe chinese, one of your most dangerous rivals, own a great chunk of America's external debt; and that's not mentioning they provide americans with a lot of the manufactured products consumed daily
Why are they our dangerous rival? How do our interests conflict? It seems to me it is in both party's interests that the other one does well.
Quotethe muslim world, whose multitudes hate your collective guts, control *the* strategic resource upon which all of America's economy is dependant
Hey if they cut it off, fine with me. We would be fine in the long run and they would be fucked.
I think he might be on to something. You guys mentioned the Russians *need* an enemy, and that the US serves in that role. It's what's keeping them from looking totally pathetic as they "throw their weight around" (steaming destroyers into Cuba that are running on fumes isn't exactly a great way to flex muscle). It could simply be that with NK heating up again, and China flexing *real* military muscle, he's going to try to take the validity out of Russia's whining, and marginalize at least one problem in the far east.
Quote from: Grallon on March 31, 2009, 11:32:21 AM
Quote from: KRonn on March 31, 2009, 11:13:34 AM
I don't think that's the issue. Issue seems to be how best for Pres Obama to deal with other nations, the difficult relations, so that he doesn't put the US at disadvantage. Doesn't get taken. Pres Bush was certainly suckered by the Russkies, crafty dudes that they are!
At a disadvantage ? Since when meeting and listening to what others have to say puts one at a disadvantage ? Many seem to assume he'll get off the plane and start rolling over at the first pretext ! That's an absurd estimation at this point.
I know this new attitude goes against something deeply ingrained in american psyches: we are the greatest and should be obeyed. Well here's a newflash:
- the russians have a large enough nuclear arsenal they could wipe you off;
- the chinese, one of your most dangerous rivals, own a great chunk of America's external debt; and that's not mentioning they provide americans with a lot of the manufactured products consumed daily;
- the muslim world, whose multitudes hate your collective guts, control *the* strategic resource upon which all of America's economy is dependant.
Being aware of these facts is not demonstrating weakness; it's rather a proof of lucidity.
G.
You're assuming an awful lot. Bush made himself a fool at the hands of Putin. Seeing Obama's opening moves gives some of us reason to have some concerns. I'm all for listening, discussing, what ever, and that all isn't really the issue. There are difficult issues going on - Europe has been discussing with Iran over nukes for years. No change. Russia has helped Iran, after the overtures Bush made to them. There's no harm in pondering that this might be more of the same.
Quote from: Berkut on March 31, 2009, 08:59:05 AM
Starting with getting rid of this missile defense system, and of course no more NATO expansion.
Gates has advised Obama that the missile defense system is a wateful, expensive boondoggle - that should be ditched in any case. And there is no NATO expansion option under serious consideration such that it could even be bargained away. So these are both red herrings.
The fact is that at this particular moment in time, there really aren't any significant geopolitical areas of conflict between the US and Russia. And Russian cooperation (or at least lack of opposition) with Iran and Afghanistan would be helpful.
Taking away all of the emotional aspects of the policy critique, what exactly is the problem here?
Quote from: Sheilbh on March 31, 2009, 10:37:44 AM
From what I understand the Bush Administration's always said missile defence was about Iran not Russia. The Russians don't like it because they think that's nonsense (and it would probably bounce them into spending ridiculous amounts of money to develop a similar programme for very little reason). What the Obama admin's done is simply take the Bush line to its next logical step. If it's about Iran and the Russians, the only major country helping Iran, can stop the Iranians getting a nuke then why shouldn't the US dump missile defence? Is it worth it, in the long run? And is it some unverifiable deal based on hot air? I think it's potentially worth it and I think it's a deal that involves at least as much of a Russian concession as an American one. I don't see much supplication.
This is assuming that Russia is a trustworthy and rational partner, an analysis that beggars belief. Is there any occasion on which the Russians haven't shown themselves to be liars? Is there any occasion on which they didn't break their word as soon as there was some advantage to doing so?
Quote from: Valmy on March 31, 2009, 12:12:57 PMIt seems to me it is in both party's interests that the other one does well.
Yeah, I used to think that, too. Putin kinda changed my mind, though. Russia doesn't tend to act in accordance with what *we* think their interests are. I thought that was common knowledge here.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on March 31, 2009, 12:22:43 PM
Gates has advised Obama that the missile defense system is a wateful, expensive boondoggle
FFS, that should only encourage Obama to move full steam ahead with it :)
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on March 31, 2009, 12:22:43 PM
Quote from: Berkut on March 31, 2009, 08:59:05 AM
Starting with getting rid of this missile defense system, and of course no more NATO expansion.
Gates has advised Obama that the missile defense system is a wateful, expensive boondoggle - that should be ditched in any case.
O RLY?
Cite?
Of course, if this is the case - then why should Russia care?
And why should we give up our leverage over them, since apparently they DO care?
A quick search of relevant news articles about Gates and missile defense seems to have a notable lack of any claims that it is a "boondoggle".
Quote from: Neil on March 31, 2009, 12:30:06 PM
This is assuming that Russia is a trustworthy and rational partner, an analysis that beggars belief. Is there any occasion on which the Russians haven't shown themselves to be liars? Is there any occasion on which they didn't break their word as soon as there was some advantage to doing so?
I think we're looking at the wrong thing. We're looking at what we hope to gain materially, and I think it's just a matter of wanting to not have Russia constantly nipping at our heels throughout the duration of the administration. Minimize the headaches so we can focus on more.
Quote from: derspiess on March 31, 2009, 12:31:09 PM
Quote from: Valmy on March 31, 2009, 12:12:57 PMIt seems to me it is in both party's interests that the other one does well.
Yeah, I used to think that, too. Putin kinda changed my mind, though. Russia doesn't tend to act in accordance with what *we* think their interests are. I thought that was common knowledge here.
Russia tends to act in accordance with that Putin's interests are.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on March 31, 2009, 12:22:43 PM
The fact is that at this particular moment in time, there really aren't any significant geopolitical areas of conflict between the US and Russia.
Then why the need to go suck up to them?
Quote
And Russian cooperation (or at least lack of opposition) with Iran and Afghanistan would be helpful.
Sure would - which is exactly why we won't get it unless we give them something in return, and even then we aren't likely to get it anyway.
What will not work is going to them and begging for them to be nice to us. If you are going to deal with Putin, the only way to do so is from a position of strength. Giving up everything that they care about (like missile defense) in the vain hope that doing so will result in them playing along with us is naive.
Quote from: derspiess on March 31, 2009, 10:46:47 AM
Mexicans need to keep their own house in order, and that is the message we should have sent.
If I were the Mexican president and I heard that, I would legalize drug trafficking. Problem solved.
Quote from: derspiess on March 31, 2009, 12:31:09 PM
Quote from: Valmy on March 31, 2009, 12:12:57 PMIt seems to me it is in both party's interests that the other one does well.
Yeah, I used to think that, too. Putin kinda changed my mind, though. Russia doesn't tend to act in accordance with what *we* think their interests are. I thought that was common knowledge here.
Depends who you mean by 'we'. I think Russia tends to act in a pretty rational way, and can see the arguments for why they think certain things are in their interests.
I agree Berk, Grallon's erecting a pretty big straw man.
Quote from: derspiess on March 31, 2009, 12:31:09 PM
Yeah, I used to think that, too. Putin kinda changed my mind, though. Russia doesn't tend to act in accordance with what *we* think their interests are. I thought that was common knowledge here.
Oh I agree. I was talking about China in that sentence though.
Quote from: Berkut on March 31, 2009, 12:33:42 PM
O RLY?
Cite?
Of course, if this is the case - then why should Russia care?
And why should we give up our leverage over them, since apparently they DO care?
A quick search of relevant news articles about Gates and missile defense seems to have a notable lack of any claims that it is a "boondoggle".
I see that you wrote your initial comment before doing the search and realizing Gates' view. It is true I can't find him actually using the word "boondoggle". Given that he was on watch as SecDef at a time when official policy was to push forward with deployment, that would be a little embarassing. But he has quite clearly expressed public doubts about its technical feasibility and cost - and the translation from bureaucratese for press consumption to plain English comes out to "boondoggle".
As for the Russians, their main interest is spinning stories for domestic consumption and maintaining "face". As a real superpower, we shouldn't feel the need to engage in similar behavior.
Quote from: Berkut on March 31, 2009, 12:37:53 PM
What will not work is going to them and begging for them to be nice to us. If you are going to deal with Putin, the only way to do so is from a position of strength. Giving up everything that they care about (like missile defense) in the vain hope that doing so will result in them playing along with us is naive.
But in fact we've given up nothing.
Quote from: Berkut on March 31, 2009, 12:37:53 PM
What will not work is going to them and begging for them to be nice to us. If you are going to deal with Putin, the only way to do so is from a position of strength. Giving up everything that they care about (like missile defense) in the vain hope that doing so will result in them playing along with us is naive.
The US is in a position of strength, or, at least, Russia's in a position of comparative weakness.
Actually, it's possible that Obama won't concede anything to Russia. After all, Obama's defining trait is his egotism. It's possible that he will be offended by Russia's refusal to simply worship him.
Quote from: DontSayBanana on March 31, 2009, 12:33:59 PM
Quote from: Neil on March 31, 2009, 12:30:06 PM
This is assuming that Russia is a trustworthy and rational partner, an analysis that beggars belief. Is there any occasion on which the Russians haven't shown themselves to be liars? Is there any occasion on which they didn't break their word as soon as there was some advantage to doing so?
I think we're looking at the wrong thing. We're looking at what we hope to gain materially, and I think it's just a matter of wanting to not have Russia constantly nipping at our heels throughout the duration of the administration. Minimize the headaches so we can focus on more.
But can that be prevented? The only time Russia was relatively quiet was when they had been completely crushed, after the fall of their empire.
We Swedes know that Russia will always be an enemy of the West. Russia needs to be beaten when it's weak and opposed when it's strong. There can never be true peace with Russia because Russia doesn't want peace, and never will.
Quote from: Sheilbh on March 31, 2009, 12:39:33 PM
Quote from: derspiess on March 31, 2009, 12:31:09 PM
Quote from: Valmy on March 31, 2009, 12:12:57 PMIt seems to me it is in both party's interests that the other one does well.
Yeah, I used to think that, too. Putin kinda changed my mind, though. Russia doesn't tend to act in accordance with what *we* think their interests are. I thought that was common knowledge here.
Depends who you mean by 'we'. I think Russia tends to act in a pretty rational way, and can see the arguments for why they think certain things are in their interests.
Well, I think Putin acts in a rational way, that doesn't mean that it is rational for Russias interests, but of course I ahve a differing view on what is good for Russia than Putin.
I do think that overall Russia's stance is not irrational per se - it is just, in many ways, predicated on setting themselves up in opposition to US interests. I don't even see that finding common ground is all that possible given the current perspective calling the shots in Moscow, since the basis of their domestic policy requires that the US be the boogeyman sticking it to the poor Russians.
It is similar to how the Arabs approach Palestine - you can talk about coming to some agreement on partitiions or lines on the map, but you realize how hopeless it is once you understand that the goal is not peace, but continued conflict. So anything you come up with will fail, since success is not desired.
Russia does not want to be a "normal" western nation, dealing with the US in the normal way that other western nations deal with the US. Because that means they are just one of many, and not a particularly powerful one at that. So, IMO, they need this tension, and will continue to create it, and we should deal with them understanding that.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on March 31, 2009, 12:48:57 PM
Quote from: Berkut on March 31, 2009, 12:33:42 PM
O RLY?
Cite?
Of course, if this is the case - then why should Russia care?
And why should we give up our leverage over them, since apparently they DO care?
A quick search of relevant news articles about Gates and missile defense seems to have a notable lack of any claims that it is a "boondoggle".
I see that you wrote your initial comment before doing the search and realizing Gates' view. It is true I can't find him actually using the word "boondoggle". Given that he was on watch as SecDef at a time when official policy was to push forward with deployment, that would be a little embarassing. But he has quite clearly expressed public doubts about its technical feasibility and cost - and the translation from bureaucratese for press consumption to plain English comes out to "boondoggle".
Actually my view on Gates did not change between the time of my intial response and doing a quick google search. Because he at no time has ever expressed anything like the sentiment that the missile defense project was a boondoggle.
Spin however you like, but until you show me a source where he says anything of the kind, I will presume you were just making things up.
So...back to my original question:
O RLY?
Cite?
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on March 31, 2009, 12:52:45 PM
Quote from: Berkut on March 31, 2009, 12:37:53 PM
What will not work is going to them and begging for them to be nice to us. If you are going to deal with Putin, the only way to do so is from a position of strength. Giving up everything that they care about (like missile defense) in the vain hope that doing so will result in them playing along with us is naive.
But in fact we've given up nothing.
You just said we were giving up the "boondoggle" missile defense project.
And how has Obama reacted to Russia stated intention of selling S-300 SAMs to Iran? Or his presuring to get US bases shut down?
I guess if you just define away the things we give up as "nothing" or claim that they are "boondoggles" or claim that people call them boondoggles when they do not, then you can conclude that we give up "nothing".
This is like arguing that Germany re-occupying the Rhineland is "nothing" since Germany really didn't have much a military at the time anyway, and really - who gives a shit about the Rhineland anyway?
On the off chance that anyway might really care about Gates and the Obama administration views on the missile defense shield and its future:
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-gates20-2009feb20,0,6062742.story
Funny, they are a lot more sane and rational about it than JR. Note the conspicuous absence of the word "boondoggle" in the entire article.
Quote from: derspiess on March 31, 2009, 12:00:23 PM
Maybe you & I had different administrations. Bush was a gigantic wuss when it came to dealing with the Mexican border, illegal aliens, etc.
Maybe we had the same administration, and the only reason why no administration has every been anything but a "wuss" in your eyes is because they cannot. Of course, that would make your casual assumption that Fortress America is simply a matter of will look silly.
Quote from: Berkut on March 31, 2009, 01:15:52 PM
Actually my view on Gates did not change between the time of my intial response and doing a quick google search. Because he at no time has ever expressed anything like the sentiment that the missile defense project was a boondoggle.
Spin however you like, but until you show me a source where he says anything of the kind, I will presume you were just making things up.
So...back to my original question:
O RLY?
Cite?
Well just to be fair please cite where Obama has his hat in his hand?
Quote from: grumbler on March 31, 2009, 01:49:08 PM
Maybe we had the same administration, and the only reason why no administration has every been anything but a "wuss" in your eyes is because they cannot. Of course, that would make your casual assumption that Fortress America is simply a matter of will look silly.
Leaving aside for the moment your "Fortress America" strawman attempt, tell me what radical rightwing militaristic measures the Bush administration took in regards to the southern border.
Quote from: Razgovory on March 31, 2009, 01:52:14 PM
Quote from: Berkut on March 31, 2009, 01:15:52 PM
Actually my view on Gates did not change between the time of my intial response and doing a quick google search. Because he at no time has ever expressed anything like the sentiment that the missile defense project was a boondoggle.
Spin however you like, but until you show me a source where he says anything of the kind, I will presume you were just making things up.
So...back to my original question:
O RLY?
Cite?
Well just to be fair please cite where Obama has his hat in his hand?
That is the message his entire approach to Russia has sent - that the onus for "fixing" the relationship is on the US, and the fault for it being acrimonious is the previous administrations.
Notethe difference between me puptting forth MY opinion, and JR stating that
Gates told Obama "the missile defense system is a wateful, expensive boondoggle - that should be ditched in any case."
Gates, of course, has said nothing of the kind. He certainly has never said it was a "boondoggle" that should be ditched "in
any case".
I think we need to press the reset button on Raz's Obama apologism :)
Quote from: derspiess on March 31, 2009, 02:13:08 PM
I think we need to press the reset button on Raz's Obama apologism :)
He isn't the only one.
Quote from: derspiess on March 31, 2009, 02:13:08 PM
I think we need to press the reset button on Raz's Obama apologism :)
Stop Hoping for that and Change with the times. The Obamamessiah leads the way.
Quote from: Ed Anger on March 31, 2009, 02:18:25 PM
Stop Hoping for that and Change with the times. The Obamamessiah leads the way.
I like Hillary; she's kind of a bitch.
Quote from: Berkut on March 31, 2009, 02:15:43 PM
He isn't the only one.
He has the benefit of the doubt until the summer of 2010. I better see some results by then.
Quote from: Valmy on March 31, 2009, 02:22:02 PM
Quote from: Berkut on March 31, 2009, 02:15:43 PM
He isn't the only one.
He has the benefit of the doubt until the summer of 2010. I better see some results by then.
Results? From Raz?
Quote from: The Brain on March 31, 2009, 02:25:18 PM
Results? From Raz?
He needs to have left his parent's basement by then...or else.
Quote from: Berkut on March 31, 2009, 02:09:04 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on March 31, 2009, 01:52:14 PM
Quote from: Berkut on March 31, 2009, 01:15:52 PM
Actually my view on Gates did not change between the time of my intial response and doing a quick google search. Because he at no time has ever expressed anything like the sentiment that the missile defense project was a boondoggle.
Spin however you like, but until you show me a source where he says anything of the kind, I will presume you were just making things up.
So...back to my original question:
O RLY?
Cite?
Well just to be fair please cite where Obama has his hat in his hand?
That is the message his entire approach to Russia has sent - that the onus for "fixing" the relationship is on the US, and the fault for it being acrimonious is the previous administrations.
Notethe difference between me puptting forth MY opinion, and JR stating that Gates told Obama "the missile defense system is a wateful, expensive boondoggle - that should be ditched in any case."
Gates, of course, has said nothing of the kind. He certainly has never said it was a "boondoggle" that should be ditched "in any case".
Oh see, when said he was doing something I assumed to you being figuritive. Sorta like JR. But since JR isn't I guessed that you really meant he was going to Russia with a hat in hand. But apperently it's an opinion or some figment of your imagination.
Quote from: derspiess on March 31, 2009, 02:13:08 PM
I think we need to press the reset button on Raz's Obama apologism :)
I think you better post less and spend more time stocking up guns and foodstuffs when the Feds come for you.
Quote from: Valmy on March 31, 2009, 02:30:46 PM
Quote from: The Brain on March 31, 2009, 02:25:18 PM
Results? From Raz?
He needs to have left his parent's basement by then...or else.
Or Else what? I could move upstairs...
Today the ground floor bedroom, tomorrow the attic!
ATTIC! ATTIC! ATTIC!
Quote from: Razgovory on March 31, 2009, 02:46:27 PM
Oh see, when said he was doing something I assumed to you being figuritive.
CAN YOU SPEAK LOUDER, I DONT UNDERSTAND YOUR WORDS.
Quote from: Ed Anger on March 31, 2009, 02:48:27 PM
Today the ground floor bedroom, tomorrow the attic!
There's a thing called setting your sights to high.
ATTICA!
I don't get the fuss over this thread. Obama saying he wants a reset is no big deal. It's when he gives away something for nothing that it becomes a big deal.
Quote from: Berkut on March 31, 2009, 02:54:32 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on March 31, 2009, 02:46:27 PM
Oh see, when said he was doing something I assumed to you being figuritive.
CAN YOU SPEAK LOUDER, I DONT UNDERSTAND YOUR WORDS.
Quit being a whinny bitch.
Quote from: Razgovory on March 31, 2009, 02:55:32 PM
Quit being a whinny bitch.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi14.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fa313%2FHabbaku%2Fhorse.jpg&hash=6f7253219446bb8775766cadb9a72a05c86b7a46)
?
Quote from: Razgovory on March 31, 2009, 02:55:32 PM
Quote from: Berkut on March 31, 2009, 02:54:32 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on March 31, 2009, 02:46:27 PM
Oh see, when said he was doing something I assumed to you being figuritive.
CAN YOU SPEAK LOUDER, I DONT UNDERSTAND YOUR WORDS.
Quit being a whinny bitch.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.woodkewalnutwoods.com%2FWhinny%2520front%2520head.jpg&hash=d5108de7446e3e133af7712e4ade6a59181adb65)
brain is getting turned on now.
Quote from: Berkut on March 31, 2009, 01:18:59 PM
You just said we were giving up the "boondoggle" missile defense project.
Giving up something that you weren't go to do anyways isn't really giving something up.
But even that hasn't happened, because no action has yet been taken. The Obama people have only said that the project is under review and they might decide not to proceed.
Is pressing reset the new clearing the aire?
Quote from: garbon on March 31, 2009, 02:19:36 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on March 31, 2009, 02:18:25 PM
Stop Hoping for that and Change with the times. The Obamamessiah leads the way.
I like Hillary; she's kind of a bitch.
So what is it with...
Oh yeah, we already had a thread on that :D
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on March 31, 2009, 03:10:25 PM
Quote from: Berkut on March 31, 2009, 01:18:59 PM
You just said we were giving up the "boondoggle" missile defense project.
Giving up something that you weren't go to do anyways isn't really giving something up.
But even that hasn't happened, because no action has yet been taken. The Obama people have only said that the project is under review and they might decide not to proceed.
Giving up something that is important to the people you are negotiating with is certainly giving something up. I am impressed by the lengths you will go to in your apologism - surely a lawyer understands that the value of something is determined by the person who you are negotiating with at least as much as the person who has it in their power to give it up or trade it.
Even if the US thought it was a "boondoggle", which of course the US does not, as long as Russia thinks it is important, it is a valuable negotiating tool. Certainly the Poles think it is valuable.
QuoteBut even that hasn't happened, because no action has yet been taken. The Obama people have only said that the project is under review and they might decide not to proceed.
So we should not be concerned by what they say, and wait until it is too late and they actually do something stupid? Beyond just *looking* idiotic with their inability to make simple translations and such?
Quote from: derspiess on March 31, 2009, 03:17:19 PM
So what is it with...
Oh yeah, we already had a thread on that :D
I paraphrased Cammy P's stance on Hillary in the early 90s. :wub:
Quote from: Berkut on March 31, 2009, 03:18:40 PM
Giving up something that is important to the people you are negotiating with is certainly giving something up. I am impressed by the lengths you will go to in your apologism - surely a lawyer understands that the value of something is determined by the person who you are negotiating with at least as much as the person who has it in their power to give it up or trade it.
Yes I remember that from the negotiation class. But I also took "Accounting for Lawyers". And what I learned from that is that one shouldn't spend billions of dollars on something that is useless to you simply out of the hope that maybe you can bargain it away later for some incohate advantage.
QuoteCertainly the Poles think it is valuable.
There has to be a good joke here . . .
QuoteSo we should not be concerned by what they say, and wait until it is too late and they actually do something stupid?
So far what they have said is that the program is up for review, and that it's raison d'etre would vanish if the Iranian bomb program were to be ended. Then they sent a letter to Russians linking those issues. I don't see the problem with that. Certainly I am not going to accuse them of doing something stupid when they haven't actually done anything stupid.
Quote from: derspiess on March 31, 2009, 03:27:51 PM
:wub:
She's so lovely. I wish they would teach her in colleges.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on March 31, 2009, 03:30:28 PM
Quote from: Berkut on March 31, 2009, 03:18:40 PM
Giving up something that is important to the people you are negotiating with is certainly giving something up. I am impressed by the lengths you will go to in your apologism - surely a lawyer understands that the value of something is determined by the person who you are negotiating with at least as much as the person who has it in their power to give it up or trade it.
Yes I remember that from the negotiation class. But I also took "Accounting for Lawyers". And what I learned from that is that one shouldn't spend billions of dollars on something that is useless to you simply out of the hope that maybe you can bargain it away later for some incohate advantage.
That isn't the reason it was developed, nor was it your point. You claimed that Gates said it was a boondoggle that we would ditch under any circumstances. That is completely wrong on both points.
And this in an effort to claim that Obama offering to toss it is not big deal. That is wrong on several different levels, which I think is rather obvious.
Quote
QuoteCertainly the Poles think it is valuable.
There has to be a good joke here . . .
QuoteSo we should not be concerned by what they say, and wait until it is too late and they actually do something stupid?
So far what they have said is that the program is up for review, and that it's raison d'etre would vanish if the Iranian bomb program were to be ended. Then they sent a letter to Russians linking those issues. I don't see the problem with that. Certainly I am not going to accuse them of doing something stupid when they haven't actually done anything stupid.
Nice strawman.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on March 31, 2009, 03:30:28 PM
So far what they have said is that the program is up for review, and that it's raison d'etre would vanish if the Iranian bomb program were to be ended. Then they sent a letter to Russians linking those issues. I don't see the problem with that. Certainly I am not going to accuse them of doing something stupid when they haven't actually done anything stupid.
What's wrong with it is that it's extremely naive. Do you really think there's any chance to get the Russians to help us?
So in essence the complaint is "Obama isn't being implacably hostile to the Russians and this shows weakness, thus he is naive"?
The missile shield is valuable precisely because it's tangible evidence that we perceive Russia as a threat, at least from a Balkan/Russian perspective. These guys feed on conflict. By abandoning the missile shield, it signals to Russia and its neighboring nations that we're confident enough in our own existing forces as deterrent.
It also signals to China, Iran and North Korea that we're shoring up resources for more important things. From a tactical perspective, this could actually be beneficial.
Quote from: Jacob on March 31, 2009, 03:50:24 PM
So in essence the complaint is "Obama isn't being implacably hostile to the Russians and this shows weakness, thus he is naive"?
And now jacob follows along in the strawman constructing footsteps of those who came before him.
This is almost as good as JRs constructed comments from Gates.
Quote from: DontSayBanana on March 31, 2009, 03:51:59 PM
The missile shield is valuable precisely because it's tangible evidence that we perceive Russia as a threat, at least from a Balkan/Russian perspective. These guys feed on conflict. By abandoning the missile shield, it signals to Russia and its neighboring nations that we're confident enough in our own existing forces as deterrent.
It also signals to China, Iran and North Korea that we're shoring up resources for more important things. From a tactical perspective, this could actually be beneficial.
Oh yeah, I am sure that Obama caving in to Russian demands will have them trembling in their boots.
Quote from: Berkut on March 31, 2009, 03:54:06 PMOh yeah, I am sure that Obama caving in to Russian demands will have them trembling in their boots.
They'll gloat, but it would take away the international forum to escalate their anti-US rhetoric. You're being tremendously short-sighted here.
I was really scratching my head trying to figure out why Berk had that avatar, now I know.
This is comedy gold, gentlemen. Vintage Languish.
Quote from: DontSayBanana on March 31, 2009, 03:55:52 PM
Quote from: Berkut on March 31, 2009, 03:54:06 PMOh yeah, I am sure that Obama caving in to Russian demands will have them trembling in their boots.
They'll gloat, but it would take away the international forum to escalate their anti-US rhetoric. You're being tremendously short-sighted here.
You are assuming that there won't be something else for them to hang their anti-US rhetoric on...and of course there will be. There always is.
It isn't hard to make up something to be outraged about, especially when it comes to the US. We have our fingers in everything, after all.
Quote from: Delirium on March 31, 2009, 03:58:11 PM
I was really scratching my head trying to figure out why Berk had that avatar, now I know.
This is comedy gold, gentlemen. Vintage Languish.
I would like to thank Raz for the suggestion.
My last one came from Habs telling me I should stop being such a big meany head to Vinnie the last time he ran pouting from the forum. I needed something new for the new forum, and Raz stepped up.
That's a really ugly horse. :x
Quote from: garbon on March 31, 2009, 04:01:04 PM
That's a really ugly horse. :x
Don't you dare talk smack about Whinny!
Quote from: Delirium on March 31, 2009, 03:58:11 PM
I was really scratching my head trying to figure out why Berk had that avatar, now I know.
This is comedy gold, gentlemen. Vintage Languish.
I still don't get the horse thing. Can you explain it to me?
Quote from: Berkut on March 31, 2009, 04:02:17 PM
Don't you dare talk smack about Whinny!
Because? :rolleyes:
Quote from: Berkut on March 31, 2009, 03:53:22 PMAnd now jacob follows along in the strawman constructing footsteps of those who came before him.
This is almost as good as JRs constructed comments from Gates.
I'd totally come around to your point of view if only you offered to press the reset button and admit things are partially your fault.
Alas, you're too much like Putin :(
Quote from: Berkut on March 31, 2009, 03:58:11 PMYou are assuming that there won't be something else for them to hang their anti-US rhetoric on...and of course there will be. There always is.
It isn't hard to make up something to be outraged about, especially when it comes to the US. We have our fingers in everything, after all.
Really? And haven't you noticed that Poland itself seems to be about the only EU country particularly *happy* with the missile shield? You don't think the missile shield, as well as direct barter for us, has been indirect barter for Russia in dealing with the EU?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 31, 2009, 04:02:37 PM
Quote from: Delirium on March 31, 2009, 03:58:11 PM
I was really scratching my head trying to figure out why Berk had that avatar, now I know.
This is comedy gold, gentlemen. Vintage Languish.
I still don't get the horse thing. Can you explain it to me?
:lol:
It doesn't behoof me to speak of such matters.
Quote from: DontSayBanana on March 31, 2009, 03:51:59 PM
The missile shield is valuable precisely because it's tangible evidence that we perceive Russia as a threat, at least from a Balkan/Russian perspective. These guys feed on conflict. By abandoning the missile shield, it signals to Russia and its neighboring nations that we're confident enough in our own existing forces as deterrent.
It also signals to China, Iran and North Korea that we're shoring up resources for more important things. From a tactical perspective, this could actually be beneficial.
Is the missile shield positioned to stop Russian missiles? The Russians still have a credible Arctic strategic deterrent fleet. That means missiles handily avoiding Poland and Czech Republic.
Quote from: Berkut on March 31, 2009, 03:59:19 PM
I would like to thank Raz for the suggestion.
Well you are a horse's ass.
Quote from: Jacob on March 31, 2009, 04:08:51 PM
Quote from: Berkut on March 31, 2009, 03:53:22 PMAnd now jacob follows along in the strawman constructing footsteps of those who came before him.
This is almost as good as JRs constructed comments from Gates.
I'd totally come around to your point of view if only you offered to press the reset button and admit things are partially your fault.
Alas, you're too much like Putin :(
I always thought Zhirinovsky was a more apt comparison.
Quote from: derspiess on March 31, 2009, 03:40:13 PM
What's wrong with it is that it's extremely naive. Do you really think there's any chance to get the Russians to help us?
I think that the Russians are concerned about the possibility that an Islamic revolutionary state just a short jaunt down the Caspian is developing nuclear weapons. Iranian missile technology is isn't where developed to the point they could get anywhere near the US, but they could reach Russian soil no problem.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on March 31, 2009, 04:41:55 PM
Quote from: derspiess on March 31, 2009, 03:40:13 PM
What's wrong with it is that it's extremely naive. Do you really think there's any chance to get the Russians to help us?
I think that the Russians are concerned about the possibility that an Islamic revolutionary state just a short jaunt down the Caspian is developing nuclear weapons. Iranian missile technology is isn't where developed to the point they could get anywhere near the US, but they could reach Russian soil no problem.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fhikm.files.wordpress.com%2F2006%2F01%2F1.jpg&hash=d2d962a848f9d7a57852d373088d6ed039c4e189)
An uppity Iran is an Iran pushing back into its historic range in the Caucasus, an Iranian-Russian alliance only makes sense as long as Iran is relatively powerless and the Turkish-American alliance (NATO) is belligerent. If Iran goes nuclear (in both a literal and non-literal batshit sense) it will push its influence further north.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on March 31, 2009, 04:41:55 PM
I think that the Russians are concerned about the possibility that an Islamic revolutionary state just a short jaunt down the Caspian is developing nuclear weapons. Iranian missile technology is isn't where developed to the point they could get anywhere near the US, but they could reach Russian soil no problem.
If so they haven't shown a lot of proof of this concern to date.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 31, 2009, 06:17:18 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on March 31, 2009, 04:41:55 PM
I think that the Russians are concerned about the possibility that an Islamic revolutionary state just a short jaunt down the Caspian is developing nuclear weapons. Iranian missile technology is isn't where developed to the point they could get anywhere near the US, but they could reach Russian soil no problem.
If so they haven't shown a lot of proof of this concern to date.
Yeah, they must be hiding it awfully well.
Quote from: derspiess on March 31, 2009, 03:27:51 PM
Quote from: garbon on March 31, 2009, 03:24:25 PM
Cammy P
:wub:
Cammy?
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fmedia.strategywiki.org%2Fimages%2F8%2F86%2FSSF2T_Cammy.gif&hash=ba9a9bfdc30c99399e2fb12126e75b1ce158e844)
Those thighs look a bit too thick.
Quote from: Ed Anger on March 31, 2009, 06:40:51 PM
Those thighs look a bit too thick.
She does a lot of kicking.
Why do we want relations with teh Russians?
I say ignore them, and perhaps they'll go away. :frog:
Quote from: Neil on March 31, 2009, 06:38:02 PM
Cammy?
Nein, although Cammy P would probably give her a one night stand.
I think the Russians and Iranians have a greater mutual interest in limiting American regional influence in those parts.
Quote from: derspiess on March 31, 2009, 09:52:15 AM
Quote from: Valmy on March 31, 2009, 09:35:51 AM
But then did she really say that they were our fault?
That's the way it came across to me.
http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSTRE52O5RF20090325?feedType=RSS&feedName=topNews&rpc=22&sp=true
Quote"Our insatiable demand for illegal drugs fuels the drug trade. Our inability to prevent weapons from being illegally smuggled across the border to arm these criminals causes the death of police officers, soldiers and civilians," Clinton told reporters during her flight to Mexico City.
"I feel very strongly we have a co-responsibility."
So much for the tough-talking hard-nosed SoS we were supposed to have gotten. It's one thing to make casual mention certain U.S. factors that contribute to the problem-- this amounts to a mea culpa IMO.
One thing Dems are awfully good at is apologizing to foreigners :rolleyes:
Sure... other Nationalities like apologizing. None of us believe Americans do so out of any kind of sincerity though. :walksoftly&... :
Quote from: derspiess on March 31, 2009, 09:52:15 AM
So much for the tough-talking hard-nosed SoS we were supposed to have gotten. It's one thing to make casual mention certain U.S. factors that contribute to the problem-- this amounts to a mea culpa IMO.
Well we are somewhat responsible. After all its like letting your mentally challenged cousin run his own household and then wonder why he's suffering from poor nutrition and hasn't showered in weeks.
Personally I would thank a bit less drama and a bit more reason... the 'hat in hand begging forgiveness' line is really undeserved.
Russia can do several things for you/us that Obama would like done; and that will require several things offered in compensation. If words are a part of that compensation... well, words are about the cheapest ware on Earth. Paying help with them is an arcane art called 'diplomacy' (you are invited to gape with awe and amazement)
Those things include Iran, certainly, and I bet Russia is not terribly interested on acquiring another country with nukes in the vicinity, but having already got on that list China, North Korea, India, Pakistan, Israel, France and Great Britain (plus US nukes) another one isn't so important to Moscow as it is for Washington and Tel Aviv.
Russia probably can be persuaded to cooperate, but not for free... and to be honest, affairs like Kosovo, Georgia and the rest of the Caucasus, growing US influence in ex-Soviet central Asia nations, the anti-ICBM shield, and that deal Bush reached with India aren't going to help.
The Indian deal is specially damaging, in my opinion. On the non proliferation field, because it does America look hypocritical, but given that India is an ally of Russia and the biggest buyer of Russian weapons, it is deemed to be interpreted by the Russians as a shameless seduction attempt.
And regarding the missile shield, I have to state once again that scrapping it would be a sensible idea anyway. Even if working as advertised, a shield won't stop terrorist attacks because they have no need to develop enormously expensive, unreliable, crude ICBMs (even rogue nations like North Korea, if planning a first strike, would probably use underhanded ways to carry their nukes to the designated target and would certainly use them if a working shield was in operation), won't stop bombers, won't stop cruise missiles... it is the Maginot Line of our century, it would be enormously expensive, it would give a false idea of security, and would have gaping holes rendering it useless.
Quote from: Berkut on March 31, 2009, 10:07:34 AM
Because Moscow will take his warm fuzzies, scrunch them into a ball, then shove them right up our ass.
They know how to play the international politics game to their advantage, and they have already shafted the US and will continue to do so at every opportunity (see their desire to sell S-300 SAMs to Iran, shutting down US airbases supporting Afghanistan).
Warm fuzzies are ammunition. Don't give them any. They are not our friends, they don't want to be our friends. In fact, even if they did want to be our friends, their own domestic political situation would not allow it -they *require* an external enemy, and we are it.
The idea that all the warm fuzzies in the world will change this is naive - it is the opposite, warm fuzzies will make it worse.
:yes:
Quote from: Alatriste on April 01, 2009, 03:12:54 AM
Personally I would thank a bit less drama and a bit more reason... the 'hat in hand begging forgiveness' line is really undeserved.
Interesting.
You say it is undeserved, then proceed to argue on a point by point basis that Obama should in fact go to Russia, hat in hand, and beg them to help us and agree to concede on pretty much every single point, all on the basis that all these issues that have come up "don't help" because of course Georgia and such was all the fault of the US, and Russia, presumably, was just some kind of victim.
The US isn't allowed to be friendly with India, because they are Russia's friend first! Stay away!
Fuck that - does Russia own India? Is India in their "sphere of influence"? No - Russia has no sphere of influence anymore, they are not a superpower.
The US should not promote democracy and rule of law in Georgia? Oh no, can't have that, the Russians won't like it! And golly, we have to keep the Russians happy, that is ever so much more important than freedom and democracy!
Russia does not want to help us. No matter what Russia thinks about a nuclear Iran on their border, they obviously care a lot more about countering US power and influence more. This idea that if only we bend over far enough, if only we kiss ass thoroughly enough, we can somehow turn Russia into our friend is a pipe dream.
It isn't going to happen. Obama can spend 4 years figuring this out, as Bush did, or if he is as smart as everyone says he can set aside the campaign rhetoric (that granted served him very well getting elected) that painted all the US-Russian problems as 100% the result if inept Republican diplomacy and learn from what has happened over the last decade.
I suspect he will not though - he is too focused on domestic politics, too inexperienced in the international world, and too naive. We will suffer through several years of Putin using him like a bitch before he figures it out.
And finally, we don't NEED Russia to like us. We do not NEED them to contain Iran. What is more, it will hurt them more in the long run. We should call their bluff, and quit letting them act like they are a hell of a lot more powerful than they are.
I'm still not seeing the hat.
Quote from: Berkut on April 01, 2009, 08:47:09 AM
Russia does not want to help us. No matter what Russia thinks about a nuclear Iran on their border, they obviously care a lot more about countering US power and influence more. This idea that if only we bend over far enough, if only we kiss ass thoroughly enough, we can somehow turn Russia into our friend is a pipe dream.
Who are you arguing this with? No one here is arguing that the US should bend over far enough or kiss ass thoroughly enough to turn Russia into a friend.
Frankly, the entire hysteria around this message (including the laughably absurd characterization of normal diplomacy as going "hat in hand" to "beg forgiveness") is amusing, but so typical of languish debate that the amusement lasts bare moments.
Quote from: grumbler on April 01, 2009, 10:54:29 AM
Frankly, the entire hysteria around this message (including the laughably absurd characterization of normal diplomacy as going "hat in hand" to "beg forgiveness") is amusing, but so typical of languish debate that the amusement lasts bare moments.
Just curious-- what is your opinion on the previous administration's policy/approach toward Russia?
Quote from: derspiess on April 01, 2009, 11:22:29 AM
Just curious-- what is your opinion on the previous administration's policy/approach toward Russia?
I think a curious mixture. Patronising over-friendliness in the first term mixed with quite strong practical incursions into Russia's 'near neighbourhood'. Second term was more coherent.
Quote from: grumbler on April 01, 2009, 10:54:29 AM
Quote from: Berkut on April 01, 2009, 08:47:09 AM
Russia does not want to help us. No matter what Russia thinks about a nuclear Iran on their border, they obviously care a lot more about countering US power and influence more. This idea that if only we bend over far enough, if only we kiss ass thoroughly enough, we can somehow turn Russia into our friend is a pipe dream.
Who are you arguing this with? No one here is arguing that the US should bend over far enough or kiss ass thoroughly enough to turn Russia into a friend.
Seems like there are several people who think that if only we give up enough, Russia will play ball and help us with iran and Afghanistan - ie, be our friend. More importantly, there seems to be this impression that Russia has some perceived interest in being part of the Western Happy Family. I used to think this myself, in fact - seems like fundamentally they ahve a lot more in common with the West than they do in opposition.
The last decade has dis-abused me of any such notions however.
Quote
Frankly, the entire hysteria around this message (including the laughably absurd characterization of normal diplomacy as going "hat in hand" to "beg forgiveness") is amusing, but so typical of languish debate that the amusement lasts bare moments.
"Normal diplomacy" can be characterized as a lot of things. Going to Russia and making noises about how the US needs to press reset buttons, and how we will be happy to give up the things that Russia wants us to, and not saying a word about Georgia, or their desire to sell SAMs to Iran and accepting their insistence that the problems with the relationship is something the US needs to fix, IMO, is "going hat in hand to beg forgiveness". The tone is both pathetic and poorly thought out.
Quote from: Sheilbh on April 01, 2009, 11:26:30 AM
Quote from: derspiess on April 01, 2009, 11:22:29 AM
Just curious-- what is your opinion on the previous administration's policy/approach toward Russia?
I think a curious mixture. Patronising over-friendliness in the first term mixed with quite strong practical incursions into Russia's 'near neighbourhood'. Second term was more coherent.
Quote from: Sheilbh on April 01, 2009, 11:26:30 AM
Quote from: derspiess on April 01, 2009, 11:22:29 AM
Just curious-- what is your opinion on the previous administration's policy/approach toward Russia?
I think a curious mixture. Patronising over-friendliness in the first term mixed with quite strong practical incursions into Russia's 'near neighbourhood'. Second term was more coherent.
Ahh yes, being friendly with them was "patronizing". So even when we are friendly with them, it turns out that justifies their hostility.
I agree that we were overly friendly in the first term, but I don't think that was a mistake except in hindsight. Hell, I was quite the Russophile at the time - I thought Russia was going to move into the Western sphere. Shrug. live and learn - Bush certainly did.
I guess Obama isn't going to learn from his mistakes though, which is unfortunate. We are going to "reset" back to a failed policy.
Quote
You say it is undeserved, then proceed to argue on a point by point basis that Obama should in fact go to Russia, hat in hand, and beg them to help us and agree to concede on pretty much every single point, all on the basis that all these issues that have come up "don't help" because of course Georgia and such was all the fault of the US, and Russia, presumably, was just some kind of victim.
Good to know that in these tough financial times straw is still pretty cheap.
Quote
The US should not promote democracy and rule of law in Georgia? Oh no, can't have that, the Russians won't like it! And golly, we have to keep the Russians happy, that is ever so much more important than freedom and democracy!
A Democratic Georgia and Russia are not antithetical; what is antithetical with Russia is a Georgia with Balkan delusions of grandeur and power far beyond its natural station that thinks it can shell and invade a non-Georgian enclave protected by the third largest Army in the world and get away with it. Supporting democracy is one thing; delusions another entirely.
Quote
Russia does not want to help us. No matter what Russia thinks about a nuclear Iran on their border, they obviously care a lot more about countering US power and influence more. This idea that if only we bend over far enough, if only we kiss ass thoroughly enough, we can somehow turn Russia into our friend is a pipe dream.
Friend is one thing, rational player is another. Russia has more to loose from an irrational, powerful Iran than an America in relative retreat from the region. Iran has borders and close ethnic ties in the Caucasus and Central Asia, while America is a foreign and incompetent player in the area.
Quote
It isn't going to happen. Obama can spend 4 years figuring this out, as Bush did, or if he is as smart as everyone says he can set aside the campaign rhetoric (that granted served him very well getting elected) that painted all the US-Russian problems as 100% the result if inept Republican diplomacy and learn from what has happened over the last decade.
Bush was probably the stupidest President in terms of Russia policy since...well....probably ever. He tried to be friends while trying to expand NATO and a Missile Shield system onto the Warsaw Pact. If Russia really wanted to keep up dollar-for-dollar with American military spending and diplomacy, this might make sense as the Russian economy would collapse like in the 1980s. But they have no intention of that,meaning that we are spend money on threats that don't exist on a system that doesn't work with money we don't really have.
Quote
And finally, we don't NEED Russia to like us. We do not NEED them to contain Iran. What is more, it will hurt them more in the long run. We should call their bluff, and quit letting them act like they are a hell of a lot more powerful than they are.
Yeah, actually we do. If Russia provides Iran with anti-aircraft missiles and radar defense systems, even if we use top-rung aircraft for an insertion we'd take casualties, and Israel would just not be able to do it. Not that I think bombing Iran makes sense unless we know they possess bombs and are fueling the or something.
Quote from: Queequeg on April 01, 2009, 11:32:08 AM
Quote
You say it is undeserved, then proceed to argue on a point by point basis that Obama should in fact go to Russia, hat in hand, and beg them to help us and agree to concede on pretty much every single point, all on the basis that all these issues that have come up "don't help" because of course Georgia and such was all the fault of the US, and Russia, presumably, was just some kind of victim.
Good to know that in these tough financial times straw is still pretty cheap.
Quote
The US should not promote democracy and rule of law in Georgia? Oh no, can't have that, the Russians won't like it! And golly, we have to keep the Russians happy, that is ever so much more important than freedom and democracy!
A Democratic Georgia and Russia are not antithetical; what is antithetical with Russia is a Georgia with Balkan delusions of grandeur and power far beyond its natural station that thinks it can shell and invade a non-Georgian enclave protected by the third largest Army in the world and get away with it. Supporting democracy is one thing; delusions another entirely.
I guess that straw was so straw like after all, since you just confirmed that in fact you felt Russia was in the right in invading Georgia.
Not much point in arguing with someone who just swallows Russian pravda in whole and spits it back out like that.
Yeah, Georgia was getting ready to subjugate the Balkans and suppress those poor Russians. In Georgia. Why, Russia had no choice but to roll over them.
I suppose I can live with the "delusion" that supporting democracy is worthwhile on its own merits, not matter how willign the Russians are to stamp it out.
Quote from: Berkut on April 01, 2009, 11:31:55 AM
Ahh yes, being friendly with them was "patronizing". So even when we are friendly with them, it turns out that justifies their hostility.
It's only patronizing if it comes from a Republican, silly.
If bush had only presented the Russians a misspelled "reset" button... :(
Quote from: Berkut on April 01, 2009, 11:39:43 AM
Quote from: Queequeg on April 01, 2009, 11:32:08 AM
Quote
You say it is undeserved, then proceed to argue on a point by point basis that Obama should in fact go to Russia, hat in hand, and beg them to help us and agree to concede on pretty much every single point, all on the basis that all these issues that have come up "don't help" because of course Georgia and such was all the fault of the US, and Russia, presumably, was just some kind of victim.
Good to know that in these tough financial times straw is still pretty cheap.
Quote
The US should not promote democracy and rule of law in Georgia? Oh no, can't have that, the Russians won't like it! And golly, we have to keep the Russians happy, that is ever so much more important than freedom and democracy!
A Democratic Georgia and Russia are not antithetical; what is antithetical with Russia is a Georgia with Balkan delusions of grandeur and power far beyond its natural station that thinks it can shell and invade a non-Georgian enclave protected by the third largest Army in the world and get away with it. Supporting democracy is one thing; delusions another entirely.
I guess that straw was so straw like after all, since you just confirmed that in fact you felt Russia was in the right in invading Georgia.
Not much point in arguing with someone who just swallows Russian pravda in whole and spits it back out like that.
Yeah, Georgia was getting ready to subjugate the Balkans and suppress those poor Russians. In Georgia. Why, Russia had no choice but to roll over them.
I suppose I can live with the "delusion" that supporting democracy is worthwhile on its own merits, not matter how willign the Russians are to stamp it out.
You really don't understand what he's talking about do you. :console:
Quote from: Queequeg on April 01, 2009, 11:32:08 AM
Yeah, actually we do. If Russia provides Iran with anti-aircraft missiles and radar defense systems, even if we use top-rung aircraft for an insertion we'd take casualties, and Israel would just not be able to do it. Not that I think bombing Iran makes sense unless we know they possess bombs and are fueling the or something.
This is exactly what I mean.
Yeah, it would be unfortunate if Russia did those things, and you are right - it may me we take some losses if we had to go in.
But that does NOT mean we *need* Russia. It just means that they can make things marginally more difficult for us - but that is only as important as we chose to make it. It isn't enough to justify us kissing their ass and letting them make whatever demands they like for their cooperation. And if, in fact, stopping Iran IS more important to them then tossing wrenches into US plans, they should not be selling S-300s to Iran no matter what we do or don't do in Poland or Georgia.
The only reason they would sell them systems like that is if they decide that poking the US in the eye is in fact more important than containing Iran. Therefore, I am right, and you are wrong - clearly they feel that a nuclear Iran is a price they are willing to pay.
So they are pushing us on issues that make it clear that styming the US is the goal in and of itself. We should not pretend that that is not the case and there is some middle ground that we can deal on. There isn't, by definition. They want a relationship based on hostility, we tried to create one based on trust, they rejected it.
Going back at them with more protestations of "Lets be friends!" after they spent the last ten years making it clear they don't want to be friends is foolish.
Quote from: Berkut on April 01, 2009, 11:39:43 AM
I guess that straw was so straw like after all, since you just confirmed that in fact you felt Russia was in the right in invading Georgia.
Not much point in arguing with someone who just swallows Russian pravda in whole and spits it back out like that.
Yeah, Georgia was getting ready to subjugate the Balkans and suppress those poor Russians. In Georgia. Why, Russia had no choice but to roll over them.
I suppose I can live with the "delusion" that supporting democracy is worthwhile on its own merits, not matter how willign the Russians are to stamp it out.
I dunno why you cannot simply debate against the arguments that he
does make, Berkut. This post is 100% straw.
See, if Russia is going to come along and say "Hey, play the game our way or we are going to sell advanced air defence systems to Iran", why isn't our response "Cool, we can play that game as well - for every S-300 you sell Iran, we are going to give a couple Patriot batteries to the Ukraine. Or Georgia. And since we don't want you attacking them, perhaps some Abrams might not be a bad idea as well."
Of course, that would be aggressive and confrontational, and only Russia is allowed to do things like that, right?
When they threaten to sell advanced weapons to our enemies with the intent to use them against US pilots, why, that is a fine reason to kiss their ass and meet their demands.
Quote from: grumbler on April 01, 2009, 11:47:35 AM
Quote from: Berkut on April 01, 2009, 11:39:43 AM
I guess that straw was so straw like after all, since you just confirmed that in fact you felt Russia was in the right in invading Georgia.
Not much point in arguing with someone who just swallows Russian pravda in whole and spits it back out like that.
Yeah, Georgia was getting ready to subjugate the Balkans and suppress those poor Russians. In Georgia. Why, Russia had no choice but to roll over them.
I suppose I can live with the "delusion" that supporting democracy is worthwhile on its own merits, not matter how willign the Russians are to stamp it out.
I dunno why you cannot simply debate against the arguments that he does make, Berkut. This post is 100% straw.
Argument by assertion is no argument at all. Even from you.
But lets sit around and argue about who is arguing, that is so languish.
Quote
I guess that straw was so straw like after all, since you just confirmed that in fact you felt Russia was in the right in invading Georgia.
No war in the history of the Caucasus would have ever fit Augustine's definition of a Just War. Both were wrong. I don't need to look at foreign policy in Manichean terms, and frankly anyone that does has no business meddling in foreign affairs; this was one of the biggest problems Bush had.
Quote
Not much point in arguing with someone who just swallows Russian pravda in whole and spits it back out like that.
The New York Times http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/07/world/europe/07georgia.html
The Economist http://www.economist.com/world/europe/displaystory.cfm?story_id=12780804
This is thick headed even for you, Berk.
Quote
Yeah, Georgia was getting ready to subjugate the Balkans and suppress those poor Russians. In Georgia. Why, Russia had no choice but to roll over them.
Ossetians and Abkhazians have as much relation to Georgians as I do to the Lebanese. Its Stalin's fault that the Abkhaz republic was subsumed into the Georgian SSR, and that Ossetia was split was another dumb Soviet policy. Anyone who talks of 'national sovereignty' in the Caucasus is usually full of it, as there are hundreds of nations and all the states are insane.
And Georgia didn't roll over them. You think they couldn't have taken Tblisi? I remember you predicting that they would, actually.
By Balkan I meant in terms of the magnitude of their national delusions. Saakashvili would not be out of place in the Macedonian Government, aruging that the "Macedonians are God's Original People" and building 17 meter tall statues of Alexander the Great. He is insane if he thinks that Georgia can be actively hostile to its largest, most powerful neighbor. He is Russia's Castro; how do you think we would have tolerated a Cuban invasion of Puerto Rico?
Quote from: Berkut on April 01, 2009, 11:51:36 AM
Quote from: grumbler on April 01, 2009, 11:47:35 AM
Quote from: Berkut on April 01, 2009, 11:39:43 AM
I guess that straw was so straw like after all, since you just confirmed that in fact you felt Russia was in the right in invading Georgia.
Not much point in arguing with someone who just swallows Russian pravda in whole and spits it back out like that.
Yeah, Georgia was getting ready to subjugate the Balkans and suppress those poor Russians. In Georgia. Why, Russia had no choice but to roll over them.
I suppose I can live with the "delusion" that supporting democracy is worthwhile on its own merits, not matter how willign the Russians are to stamp it out.
I dunno why you cannot simply debate against the arguments that he does make, Berkut. This post is 100% straw.
Argument by assertion is no argument at all. Even from you.
But lets sit around and argue about who is arguing, that is so languish.
well hey you guys need to break that cherry at the "new" Languish. I'm waiting for the 1st evolution thread
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 31, 2009, 06:17:18 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on March 31, 2009, 04:41:55 PM
I think that the Russians are concerned about the possibility that an Islamic revolutionary state just a short jaunt down the Caspian is developing nuclear weapons. Iranian missile technology is isn't where developed to the point they could get anywhere near the US, but they could reach Russian soil no problem.
If so they haven't shown a lot of proof of this concern to date.
There hasn't really been anything for them to do. They can't do anything acting alone and have bigger fish to fry in any case. The US policy for the last decade toward Iran has alternated betweeen sticking one's head in the sand and pretending the problem will go away if you just give out enough nasty State Dept human rights reviews, and various half-assed efforts at coordinating a sanctions regime. Not hard to understand why the Russians have been in no rush to get out in front.
Quote from: Berkut on April 01, 2009, 11:51:36 AM
Argument by assertion is no argument at all. Even from you.
Agreed. I am not arguing with you. I am simply pointing out a fact: every statement you are b"countering" in your post is a statement you yourself have made up. None of them respond to Queequeg's actual arguments.
QuoteBut lets sit around and argue about who is arguing, that is so Berkut.
Fixed
Serious question: what is a bigger challenge to US foreign policy - Russian strength or Russian weakness?
Sometimes it makes sense to look at the big picture first, before getting down in the details.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on April 01, 2009, 11:59:44 AM
Serious question: what is a bigger challenge to US foreign policy - Russian strength or Russian weakness?
Sometimes it makes sense to look at the big picture first, before getting down in the details.
Weakness, in all honesty. A weak Russia is belligerent trying to cover up its weakness.
Though this really depends on the ideology in Russia; if we are talking about some kind of free-market, reasonably liberal Russia then I don't think anyone here would really mind if their "sphere of influence" included most of Eurasia. Its a bit different when it means that they invade Hungary for having a moment of sanity.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on April 01, 2009, 11:59:44 AM
Serious question: what is a bigger challenge to US foreign policy - Russian strength or Russian weakness?
Sometimes it makes sense to look at the big picture first, before getting down in the details.
I am gonna go with "weakness." A weak Russia is a humiliated Russia, which is a Russia whose government has to prove to its people that it isn't weak after all. World wars have been started by weak Russias. Strong Russias don't find such temptations very tempting.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on April 01, 2009, 11:54:32 AM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 31, 2009, 06:17:18 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on March 31, 2009, 04:41:55 PM
I think that the Russians are concerned about the possibility that an Islamic revolutionary state just a short jaunt down the Caspian is developing nuclear weapons. Iranian missile technology is isn't where developed to the point they could get anywhere near the US, but they could reach Russian soil no problem.
If so they haven't shown a lot of proof of this concern to date.
There hasn't really been anything for them to do. They can't do anything acting alone and have bigger fish to fry in any case. The US policy for the last decade toward Iran has alternated betweeen sticking one's head in the sand and pretending the problem will go away if you just give out enough nasty State Dept human rights reviews, and various half-assed efforts at coordinating a sanctions regime. Not hard to understand why the Russians have been in no rush to get out in front.
And that explains their plans to sell air defence weapons systems to Iran?
Quote from: grumbler on April 01, 2009, 12:06:20 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on April 01, 2009, 11:59:44 AM
Serious question: what is a bigger challenge to US foreign policy - Russian strength or Russian weakness?
Sometimes it makes sense to look at the big picture first, before getting down in the details.
I am gonna go with "weakness." A weak Russia is a humiliated Russia, which is a Russia whose government has to prove to its people that it isn't weak after all. World wars have been started by weak Russias. Strong Russias don't find such temptations very tempting.
Its also worth pointing out that a Strong Russia has checked the growth of every wannabe World Empire from the Mongols to the Nazis. Russia is to the nation states of Europe (and the world) what the Ozone layer is to ultraviolet light. Without it we'd have had the Ottomans, Mongols, French or Nazis ruling the whole continent and possibly the world.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on April 01, 2009, 11:59:44 AM
Serious question: what is a bigger challenge to US foreign policy - Russian strength or Russian weakness?
Sometimes it makes sense to look at the big picture first, before getting down in the details.
That is a good question.
But I think it presents a false dilemna - there is nothing about a strong or weak Russia that makes their actions constrained. They could act in a hostile manner towards the US whether they are weak or strong, relatively, and have done so over the last ten years or so.
IMO, this is due more to their particular leadership than their relative strength. They are belligerent because their leadership thinks that is how they can remain politically relevant, and that seems to be true when they were flush with cash and now that they are not.
Of course, you could argue that they were actually weak in both cases.
I think the real problem is that Putin et al need an enemy to maintain their hold on what is (in Western standards) illegitimate power. The last decade has made that clear, or at least made it clear that they think they need to, which amounts to the same thing.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on April 01, 2009, 11:59:44 AM
Serious question: what is a bigger challenge to US foreign policy - Russian strength or Russian weakness?
Sometimes it makes sense to look at the big picture first, before getting down in the details.
Has Russia ever been strong? It seems like throughout its entire history Russia has been acting out of weakness.
Quote from: Queequeg on April 01, 2009, 12:14:05 PM
Quote from: grumbler on April 01, 2009, 12:06:20 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on April 01, 2009, 11:59:44 AM
Serious question: what is a bigger challenge to US foreign policy - Russian strength or Russian weakness?
Sometimes it makes sense to look at the big picture first, before getting down in the details.
I am gonna go with "weakness." A weak Russia is a humiliated Russia, which is a Russia whose government has to prove to its people that it isn't weak after all. World wars have been started by weak Russias. Strong Russias don't find such temptations very tempting.
Its also worth pointing out that a Strong Russia has checked the growth of every wannabe World Empire from the Mongols to the Nazis. Russia is to the nation states of Europe (and the world) what the Ozone layer is to ultraviolet light. Without it we'd have had the Ottomans, Mongols, French or Nazis ruling the whole continent and possibly the world.
I think in most of those cases, they may have had some help, and in many of them were not exactly fighting the nasty Napoleons or Hitlers out of any sense of moral duty to protect the world from totalitarianism.
Nor do I really think there is any kind of potential threat of that kind now, or anytime in the near future. Maybe China? Seems implausible.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on April 01, 2009, 11:54:32 AM
There hasn't really been anything for them to do. They can't do anything acting alone and have bigger fish to fry in any case. The US policy for the last decade toward Iran has alternated betweeen sticking one's head in the sand and pretending the problem will go away if you just give out enough nasty State Dept human rights reviews, and various half-assed efforts at coordinating a sanctions regime. Not hard to understand why the Russians have been in no rush to get out in front.
:huh:The conventional wisdom is that they and the Chinese are the ones blocking more vigorous sanctions. If you have some private information that would correct this misperception, please share it.
Quote from: DGuller on April 01, 2009, 12:18:02 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on April 01, 2009, 11:59:44 AM
Serious question: what is a bigger challenge to US foreign policy - Russian strength or Russian weakness?
Sometimes it makes sense to look at the big picture first, before getting down in the details.
Has Russia ever been strong? It seems like throughout its entire history Russia has been acting out of weakness.
A pathological sense of inferiority and strength are not at all antithetical.
Quote from: Berkut on April 01, 2009, 12:18:13 PM
Quote from: Queequeg on April 01, 2009, 12:14:05 PM
Quote from: grumbler on April 01, 2009, 12:06:20 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on April 01, 2009, 11:59:44 AM
Serious question: what is a bigger challenge to US foreign policy - Russian strength or Russian weakness?
Sometimes it makes sense to look at the big picture first, before getting down in the details.
I am gonna go with "weakness." A weak Russia is a humiliated Russia, which is a Russia whose government has to prove to its people that it isn't weak after all. World wars have been started by weak Russias. Strong Russias don't find such temptations very tempting.
Its also worth pointing out that a Strong Russia has checked the growth of every wannabe World Empire from the Mongols to the Nazis. Russia is to the nation states of Europe (and the world) what the Ozone layer is to ultraviolet light. Without it we'd have had the Ottomans, Mongols, French or Nazis ruling the whole continent and possibly the world.
I think in most of those cases, they may have had some help, and in many of them were not exactly fighting the nasty Napoleons or Hitlers out of any sense of moral duty to protect the world from totalitarianism.
Nor do I really think there is any kind of potential threat of that kind now, or anytime in the near future. Maybe China? Seems implausible.
Somehow I doubt the Ozone layer takes pride out of defending me from cancer.
And China is the most obvious; a Chinese invasion of a strong Russia through Siberia has clusterfuck written all over it.
Quote from: DGuller on April 01, 2009, 12:18:02 PM
Has Russia ever been strong? It seems like throughout its entire history Russia has been acting out of weakness.
From the Napoleonic War up to the Russo-Japanese they were called the Russian Steamroller.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 01, 2009, 12:29:18 PM
Quote from: DGuller on April 01, 2009, 12:18:02 PM
Has Russia ever been strong? It seems like throughout its entire history Russia has been acting out of weakness.
From the Napoleonic War up to the Russo-Japanese they were called the Russian Steamroller.
Crimea? With only a few exceptions Russia has been far stronger on defense than attack.
Quote from: Queequeg on April 01, 2009, 12:23:26 PM
Somehow I doubt the Ozone layer takes pride out of defending me from cancer.
And China is the most obvious; a Chinese invasion of a strong Russia through Siberia has clusterfuck written all over it.
Indeed. And I would hesitate to say that the Ozone layer is responsible for saving you from lung cnacer so we should go ahead and let it screw us over in other areas.
We don't need a strong Russia to save us from the Chinese. The best argument for a strong Russia is that hopefully if they are comfortable they will stop acting like such paranoid dickheads.
There are two problems with this though:
1. There idea of the power they ought to have and the realistic assessment of the power they can reasonably have are wildly divergent, as far as I can tell. It isn't enough for them to be an equal in the Western world with the other non-US Western nations - they want to be a superpower again, or at least a superpower-lite, and there isn't any reason to suppose that they can, will, or that it would be good for anyone but themselves if they were
2. They have pretty good historical reason for their paranoia - so I don't really see how to overcome that. If *I* were Russian, I would probably be pretty convinced the rest of the Western world was dangerous and not to be trusted, and act accordingly.
I don't think Russias actions are very hard to understand in context - I just think they are in a position where they are not going to see any upside to being anything but an antagonist to the US. And they are acting accordingly.
Quote from: Berkut on April 01, 2009, 11:31:55 AMAhh yes, being friendly with them was "patronizing". So even when we are friendly with them, it turns out that justifies their hostility.
You're making leaps here. I said patronising, maybe that's the wrong word. I mean superficially preposterous and 'weak', whereas Clinton was patronising. President Bush looking into Putin's eyes and so on is difficult to describe. I don't think that side of things justifies Russian hostility. Though I think a feeling of humiliation and no longer being at the top table that was instilled through the 90s does explain later hostility.
QuoteI agree that we were overly friendly in the first term, but I don't think that was a mistake except in hindsight. Hell, I was quite the Russophile at the time - I thought Russia was going to move into the Western sphere. Shrug. live and learn - Bush certainly did.
How were you overly friendly in the first term? You said loving things while expanding NATO, for the first time, to Russia's border. You also supported three revolutions in 'Russian' states that saw pro-western, democratic governments emerge, for the first time there were American troops in their near-abroad and you pushed ahead with a missile defence programme that they believed aimed at them.
Now that doesn't mean the policies were bad. I'd support at least three-quarters of it but I think the idea that the Bush administration, from a Russian perspective, was friendly is a bit bizarre. The mood music may have been nice but the policy was pretty hard-headed and sensible.
QuoteSerious question: what is a bigger challenge to US foreign policy - Russian strength or Russian weakness?
Russian weakness, I think. Which is why I think Obama's policy so far (and it's very early) is quite sensible. Treat them with Cold War era respect (inviting them to meet in Geneva and so on) while offering relatively minimal and verifiable deals. If they're weak and feel it, then I think they'll cause more issues that if they're weak but feel respected.
Quote from: Sheilbh on April 01, 2009, 01:48:03 PM
President Bush looking into Putin's eyes and so on is difficult to describe. I don't think that side of things justifies Russian hostility. Though I think a feeling of humiliation and no longer being at the top table that was instilled through the 90s does explain later hostility.
I think Bush gets somewhat of an unfair rap about his "eye/soul" comment-- I don't think Bush or anyone in the administration genuinely thought Putin or the rest of the Russian leadership were good guys. I think it was just the administration's well-intentioned (but wrong IMO) approach to speak of the Russians as we wanted them to be/act, hoping that would somehow influence them to act/be that way.
Russians (at least not the ones in charge) don't think like Westerners; I wish we'd quit treating them like they were.
Quote from: Queequeg on April 01, 2009, 12:32:34 PM
Crimea? With only a few exceptions Russia has been far stronger on defense than attack.
It took the combined efforts of two major powers and two lesser states to eke out a bare victory over Russia in Crimea.
Quote from: DGuller on April 01, 2009, 12:18:02 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on April 01, 2009, 11:59:44 AM
Serious question: what is a bigger challenge to US foreign policy - Russian strength or Russian weakness?
Sometimes it makes sense to look at the big picture first, before getting down in the details.
Has Russia ever been strong? It seems like throughout its entire history Russia has been acting out of weakness.
sure. as early as the 7 years war they have been feared. Freddy II almost killed himself out of military impotence.
Quote from: Sheilbh on April 01, 2009, 01:48:03 PM
Which is why I think Obama's policy so far (and it's very early) is quite sensible.
I don't think that's the real reason why. ^_^
Quote from: Berkut on April 01, 2009, 12:18:13 PM
I think in most of those cases, they may have had some help, and in many of them were not exactly fighting the nasty Napoleons or Hitlers out of any sense of moral duty to protect the world from totalitarianism.
A good point. In every case, Russia was actually worse than the power that they constrained.
Quote from: derspiess on April 01, 2009, 02:28:29 PM
I think Bush gets somewhat of an unfair rap about his "eye/soul" comment-- I don't think Bush or anyone in the administration genuinely thought Putin or the rest of the Russian leadership were good guys. I think it was just the administration's well-intentioned (but wrong IMO) approach to speak of the Russians as we wanted them to be/act, hoping that would somehow influence them to act/be that way.
Although I think, with a few exceptions, it's difficult to judge Bush's first term normally. I think they fucked up Iraq and didn't commit sufficiently to Afghanistan and I think they missed a chance with Iran. But aside from those issues in terms of Latin America, Europe, Asia and Africa policy I think it's entirely understandable that they didn't entirely have their eye on the ball because the over-riding concern was terrorism and the Middle East.
Yi, Berkut -
The Russian policy towards Iran has been one of ambivalence. The Russians have taken advantage of Western hostility to expand trade relationships. That includes exports of weaponry, which happen to be one of the Iranian import needs that coincides with a Russian export capability (it's not like the Iranians are going to import Russian gas). The Russians have had no motivation to cooperate on sanctions, because the Europeans weren't fully on board, and because the US couldn't secure Chinese cooperation - why disrupt their own trade for what would have been a symbolic gesture? At the same time, the Russians have been quietly cutting back on Iranian student and work visas, and have been squabbling over the Caspian. The Russians also still have enormous headaches with Islamist movements within and on their borders, and have little long-run interest in emboldening the Islamic Republic.
This is an area where if we wan't them to cooperate, we will need to have their goodwill. It's possible they will never play ball out of spite, but that I think misreads the situation. The Russians have quietly been helping out on Afghanistan, facilitating the flow of supplies to NATO allied forces. Whatever schadenfreude they may get at seeing the US struggle in the ME is outweighed by their own interests in stable southern border.
It is also possible that the price required for their cooperation is not worth paying. But the Potemkin Village missile defense installation in the Baltic is not even close to be being an untouchable chip.
They have been "quietly helping out" by pressuring Kyrgyzstan to close the US airbase there that supplies troops in Afghanistan.
That is pretty quiet, I will give you that.
If they have such an interest in a stable border with Iran, and they want to avoid emboldening Islamist movements, why are they selling them advanced air defense systems that can be used to shoot down NATO aircraft in Afghanistan, much less aircraft attacking Irans nuclear program?
If in fact they care more about keeping Iran from getting nukes than they do about hampering US efforts, then they would not sell the SA-10 to Iran regardless of "boondoggle" missile defense systems...right?
Quote from: grumbler on April 01, 2009, 12:06:20 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on April 01, 2009, 11:59:44 AM
Serious question: what is a bigger challenge to US foreign policy - Russian strength or Russian weakness?
Sometimes it makes sense to look at the big picture first, before getting down in the details.
I am gonna go with "weakness."
That is my view as well, although I don't think it is so obvious as to make it a purely rhetorical question.
There has been a lot of talk recently about the instability along the US-Mexican border, but a similar story of perhaps greater significance hasn't gotten a lot of play: the "russian connection" drug trade running from the poppy fields of Afghanistan through the former SSR "stans" through Russia proper to the customers in Europe. The combination of governmental corruption in the -Stans, lots of cheap vintage weaponry lying around, piles of drug cash and the accompanying money laundering facilities, poorly policed borders, and Islamist fanatics roaming about - is worthy of serious concern. This is a part of the world we will be hearing more about soon.
Actually, the problem of heroin within Russia is becoming a large concern for them.
Quote from: Berkut on April 01, 2009, 02:59:27 PM
If they have such an interest in a stable border with Iran, and they want to avoid emboldening Islamist movements, why are they selling them advanced air defense systems that can be used to shoot down NATO aircraft in Afghanistan, much less aircraft attacking Irans nuclear program
While I understand that the S-300 is a capable AA missile, I doubt very much that S-300s deployed anywhere in Iran can shoot down aircraft operating above Kandahar.
Personally, I think the more interesting question is not "why are the Russians proposing to sell S-300s to Iran" (Obvious A: "To make money"), but rather, why is it going to take an entire year before any deliveries are made?
The SA-10 has a 120 mile range, so yeah, one deployed along the border can certainly reach into Afghanistan.
Believe it or not, NATO aircraft operate over more than just Kandahar.
And I don't think that is all that interesting a question at all - in fact, I think it is your attempt to distract from the rather basic point. Which is that them supplying Iran with one of the most advanced SAM systems in the world pretty much sinks the idea that they care all that much about containing Iran, as opposed to "containing" the West.
I am not even sure I can blame them, given their priorities.
I keep thinking you are Marty, Berk...as in my head I have that Marty once had a horse avatar (no idea if this is true). But then I figure it out when someone quotes you or when I don't see any evidence of mismanaged analogies. :blush: :blush: :blush:
Quote from: garbon on April 01, 2009, 03:32:09 PM
I keep thinking you are Marty, Berk...as in my head I have that Marty once had a horse avatar (no idea if this is true). But then I figure it out when someone quotes you or when I don't see any evidence of mismanaged analogies. :blush: :blush: :blush:
Comparing me to Marty is like comparing a artichoke to a Ford F-150.
Quote from: Berkut on April 01, 2009, 03:14:54 PM
The SA-10 has a 120 mile range, so yeah, one deployed along the border can certainly reach into Afghanistan.
Kandahar is about 500 miles from the Iranian border. While it is a matter of academic interest that a hypothetical Sa-10 battery that was deployed right on the wilds of the Iranian-Afghan border could reach into the near-empty wastelands of far-western Afghanistan, it is of questionable practical consequence.
Quote from: Berkut on April 01, 2009, 03:36:33 PM
Quote from: garbon on April 01, 2009, 03:32:09 PM
I keep thinking you are Marty, Berk...as in my head I have that Marty once had a horse avatar (no idea if this is true). But then I figure it out when someone quotes you or when I don't see any evidence of mismanaged analogies. :blush: :blush: :blush:
Comparing me to Marty is like comparing a artichoke to a Ford F-150.
Glad to see keeping his sense of analogies alive as well.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on April 01, 2009, 03:41:29 PM
Quote from: Berkut on April 01, 2009, 03:14:54 PM
The SA-10 has a 120 mile range, so yeah, one deployed along the border can certainly reach into Afghanistan.
Kandahar is about 500 miles from the Iranian border. While it is a matter of academic interest that a hypothetical Sa-10 battery that was deployed right on the wilds of the Iranian-Afghan border could reach into the near-empty wastelands of far-western Afghanistan, it is of questionable practical consequence.
Tell me more about how you know that no NATO aircraft fly within 100 miles of teh Iranian border in Afghanistan?
It is interesting that you hang your acceptance on this issue though - it is a-ok for Russia to give Iran advanced SAM systems, as long as they cannot shoot down planes actually over Kandahar with them!
Quote from: Berkut on April 01, 2009, 03:36:33 PM
Comparing me to Marty is like comparing a artichoke to a Ford F-150.
I don't particularly care for artichokes but I suppose they are better(healthier) for one than an F-150.
Quote from: Berkut on April 01, 2009, 03:50:41 PM
It is interesting that you hang your acceptance on this issue though - it is a-ok for Russia to give Iran advanced SAM systems, as long as they cannot shoot down planes actually over Kandahar with them!
It's not a question of accept or not accept. I know we aren't going to use force to prevent it. We can't use the Security Council to stop it because Russia can veto. We can stamp our feet, beat our chests and talk about how "tough" we are, and call Vlad Putin rude names, but that is not likely to work either.
What I do know is that the Iranians are not going to use their hypothetical Russian supplied missiles to take out NATO aircraft operating in Afganistan. First because the primary areas of Taliban activity are out of range. Second, because the most likely deployment areas are places like their nuclear development facilities (Bushehr, Yazd, Natanz, Isfahan) - none of which are within 500 miles of the Afgan border. (The only major city vaguely near the Afghan border is Mashhad - there is an airbase there so I suppose they could deploy the missiles there. It would still be out of range of Herat). Third, because if a NATO aircraft got hit by a SA-10 it would be pretty obvious who was responsible and we could and would retaliate disproportionately.
There's been quite a bit of fighting in Iranian, Pakistani and Afghan Balochisan, but I doubt we are using Zaranj as a major supply center or anything, or that the Iranians would strike against Pakistani Balochistan.
Then again, this is semantics. I seriously doubt Berk had any idea how out of the way the Pathan trouble areas are from the Iranian heartland.
Quote from: Berkut on April 01, 2009, 03:36:33 PM
Comparing me to Marty is like comparing a artichoke to a Ford F-150.
Wait, so you ARE Mart?
Quote from: Queequeg on April 01, 2009, 06:36:42 PM
Then again, this is semantics. I seriously doubt Berk had any idea how out of the way the Pathan trouble areas are from the Iranian heartland.
Yeah best to assume that he is just ignorant...
Also, I'd say it is a discussion of geography, not semantics.
Quote from: garbon on April 01, 2009, 06:50:44 PM
Also, I'd say it is a discussion of geography, not semantics.
Don't be anti-semantic.
Quote from: PDH on April 01, 2009, 06:51:36 PM
Don't be anti-semantic.
On the contrary, I find it to be the superior study. :goodboy:
There's no harm in talking nice to Russia, provided nothing important is given away.
Quote from: Queequeg on April 01, 2009, 06:36:42 PM
There's been quite a bit of fighting in Iranian, Pakistani and Afghan Balochisan, but I doubt we are using Zaranj as a major supply center or anything, or that the Iranians would strike against Pakistani Balochistan.
Then again, this is semantics. I seriously doubt Berk had any idea how out of the way the Pathan trouble areas are from the Iranian heartland.
It isn't really the point though.
Neither is it the point that we cannot stop the Russians if that is what they wish to do - the point is that they rather clearly do not share your guys naive dreams that containing Iran is more important to Russia than opposing the US. Because there is no reason to sell Iran these weapons other than to counter the US and the West, since that is who they would be used against - whether that be in Afghanistan or Iran.
You know, ever since somebody mentioned it, I keep thinking Martinus when I see Berkut's avatar.
The power of suggestion is truly incredible.
Quote from: Ancient Demon on April 01, 2009, 08:28:30 PM
There's no harm in talking nice to Russia, provided nothing important is given away.
This is what JFK thought, which is how he ended up careening from crisis to crisis.
Obama's groveling in response to continuous provocation is an embarrassement.
Quote from: Hansmeister on April 01, 2009, 09:26:45 PM
Quote from: Ancient Demon on April 01, 2009, 08:28:30 PM
There's no harm in talking nice to Russia, provided nothing important is given away.
This is what JFK thought, which is how he ended up careening from crisis to crisis.
Obama's groveling in response to continuous provocation is an embarrassement.
Let's not get carried away. He's not groveling.
Quote from: Hansmeister on April 01, 2009, 09:26:45 PM
Quote from: Ancient Demon on April 01, 2009, 08:28:30 PM
There's no harm in talking nice to Russia, provided nothing important is given away.
This is what JFK thought, which is how he ended up careening from crisis to crisis.
Obama's groveling in response to continuous provocation is an embarrassement.
Bollocks.
Take Eisenhower's presidency:
- 1953: USSR gets H bomb, he does nothing. Surrenders to China and let's North Korea get an armistice.
- 1954: Surrenders again in Indochina, lets France in the lurch; Commies get North Vietnam.
- 1956: Treasons Israel, France and Britain; Commies get control of the Suez channel trough Nasser. Treasons Hungary too.
- 1957: Sputnik. America humbled.
- 1958: Rewards Red aggression inviting Khruschev to tour America.
- 1960: U-2 shot down over the USSR. He does... nothing.
That would be Hans' tale if Ike had been a Dem. Of course it's a ridiculous story, but I fail to see how Kennedy 'groveled' and 'went from crisis to crisis' and Eisenhower didn't...
Quote from: Alatriste on April 02, 2009, 04:44:58 AM
Quote from: Hansmeister on April 01, 2009, 09:26:45 PM
Quote from: Ancient Demon on April 01, 2009, 08:28:30 PM
There's no harm in talking nice to Russia, provided nothing important is given away.
This is what JFK thought, which is how he ended up careening from crisis to crisis.
Obama's groveling in response to continuous provocation is an embarrassement.
Bollocks.
Take Eisenhower's presidency:
- 1953: USSR gets H bomb, he does nothing. Surrenders to China and let's North Korea get an armistice.
- 1954: Surrenders again in Indochina, lets France in the lurch; Commies get North Vietnam.
- 1956: Treasons Israel, France and Britain; Commies get control of the Suez channel trough Nasser. Treasons Hungary too.
- 1957: Sputnik. America humbled.
- 1958: Rewards Red aggression inviting Khruschev to tour America.
- 1960: U-2 shot down over the USSR. He does... nothing.
That would be Hans' tale if Ike had been a Dem. Of course it's a ridiculous story, but I fail to see how Kennedy 'groveled' and 'went from crisis to crisis' and Eisenhower didn't...
You should know by now that what Hans says has little or nothing to do with reality. I was thinking of saying the same thing (only with Nixon) but I figured it would be unnecessary.
Quote from: Alatriste on April 02, 2009, 04:44:58 AM
Quote from: Hansmeister on April 01, 2009, 09:26:45 PM
Quote from: Ancient Demon on April 01, 2009, 08:28:30 PM
There's no harm in talking nice to Russia, provided nothing important is given away.
This is what JFK thought, which is how he ended up careening from crisis to crisis.
Obama's groveling in response to continuous provocation is an embarrassement.
Bollocks.
Take Eisenhower's presidency:
- 1953: USSR gets H bomb, he does nothing. Surrenders to China and let's North Korea get an armistice.
- 1954: Surrenders again in Indochina, lets France in the lurch; Commies get North Vietnam.
- 1956: Treasons Israel, France and Britain; Commies get control of the Suez channel trough Nasser. Treasons Hungary too.
- 1957: Sputnik. America humbled.
- 1958: Rewards Red aggression inviting Khruschev to tour America.
- 1960: U-2 shot down over the USSR. He does... nothing.
That would be Hans' tale if Ike had been a Dem. Of course it's a ridiculous story, but I fail to see how Kennedy 'groveled' and 'went from crisis to crisis' and Eisenhower didn't...
:lol:
Don't forget Ike's atrocious war record.
Speak of the Devil! http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/04/opinion/04iht-edzourabichvili.html
Quote
Op-Ed Contributor
A Fresh Start in Georgia
By SALOMÉ ZOURABICHVILI
Like many fellow Georgians, I once had such high hopes for my country, as did our friends in the West. It began with the optimism of the Rose Revolution, grew as Georgia was named a "beacon of democracy" by the Bush administration, and solidified as Georgia came to be seen as a strategic partner for stability in its neighborhood. Sadly, this dream has ended. Democracy itself is crumbling in Georgia.
Under Mikhail Saakashvili Georgia has become an authoritarian state, buoyed by unbalanced power and millions of dollars in aid. Institutions that should be the very foundations of democracy have been undermined. Our Parliament, with a two-thirds majority for Saakashvili's party, is unable to provide checks and balances. Elections are fraudulent and discredited, as illustrated in reports by the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe on ballot-box stuffing and intimidation during the last presidential elections.
With the seizure of news outlets and the censorship of journalists, there is no longer a free media. The penal system is rife with abuse, not just with political interference in the judiciary, but also with torture in our prisons, as documented by the U.S. State Department. Georgia is now a country where everything — from business to sports to culture — falls under government control.
The Bush administration must bear some responsibility for giving priority to stability and turning a blind eye to the Saakashvili government's increasingly authoritarian tendencies.
We hope the Obama administration will take a stand that reflects America's principles in aiding the development of truly democratic institutions in Georgia rather than simply supporting individual leaders. We hope much-needed financial aid will be conditioned on adherence to principles of democracy, civil society and human rights.
Since the Rose Revolution there have been reversals in three key democratic pillars — increasing restrictions on media freedom, political interference in the judiciary and the erosion of private property rights. All of these should be reason enough for the United States and the European Union to push Georgia — a country of major strategic importance given its bearing on relations with Russia — back on the path toward democracy.
An ideal starting point involves the case of the TV channel Imedi, Georgia's only independent national television station until it was seized and ransacked by security forces and then expropriated from its legal owners to silence criticism of the government.
The seizure is symbolic of government attacks on private property. A recent court judgment upholding Imedi's confiscation, despite clear evidence of fraud and forgery, is widely seen as illustrating the total lack of independence of the judicial system. The intimidation of Imedi's journalists is evidence of the violation of human rights. Imedi has become the symbol of a free press that has ceased to exist.
This is not an isolated case: On March 12, one of Georgia's most prominent journalists, Inga Grigolia, resigned her position at Georgia's public broadcaster when the station refused to air an interview with a former government minister who is in exile for fear of his life. The editor of the Georgian Times, a popular weekly newspaper, last week suspended publication after his son was threatened by police officers at gunpoint. Imedi itself, which the government claims is independent, has been taken over by a Ministry of Defense official.
In Georgian, the word Imedi means "hope," and that hope has been shattered. But by taking action on this one issue, the United States and its allies can demonstrate their commitment to democracy in Georgia. Demanding that the Georgian leadership returns Imedi to its rightful owners, thus restoring its independence and permitting a voice of balanced journalism to again be heard, would be a clear signal that U.S. policy in Georgia will insist on development of the basic democratic institutions we so fervently seek. Furthermore, restoration of media freedom will give Georgia a crucial instrument it needs to rebuild its civil society.
I have called for new elections in Georgia that would be free and fair so that the people can begin to rebuild a truly democratic society. What we need, however, is uncompromising international commitment to the basic institutions of democracy, not simply foreign support for individual leaders. Democracy must have a fresh start in Georgia — and a fresh stance from our genuine friends abroad.
A little better than Pravda, Berk?
The New York Times? :lol:
Quote from: Neil on April 03, 2009, 09:57:58 PM
The New York Times? :lol:
I know, not good enough for Mart...er Berk...whatever.
One thing is for sure: in that region there are no good guys. It's pretty much always bad guys versus worse guys.
From the WaPo:
QuoteObama, Going Along to Get Along
By Jackson Diehl
Sunday, April 5, 2009; A15
Barack Obama has proved in the past few days that he can work smoothly and productively with a wide range of foreign leaders -- provided that he allows them to set the agenda.
The president's whirl of bilateral and multilateral meetings in London, Strasbourg, Baden-Baden, Prague and Ankara produced a string of glowing communiques announcing "real and lasting progress on a host of these issues," as Obama proudly put it. There were certainly some tangible results, such as the promise of a new U.S.-Russian treaty to reduce nuclear weapons and the Group of 20's agreement to inject more than $1 trillion into the global economy through the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank.
What's striking about Obama's diplomacy, however, has been his willingness to embrace the priorities of European governments, Russia and China while playing down -- or setting aside altogether -- principal American concerns.
As U.S. officials readily acknowledge, strategic arms control is of much greater interest to Russia -- whose nuclear arsenal is rapidly deteriorating -- than it is to the United States. From Washington's perspective, stopping Iran's nuclear program is far more urgent than agreeing on the next incremental reduction in Cold War warheads. Yet Obama essentially consented in his first summit with Russian President Dmitry Medvedev to devote the next four months of U.S.-Russian relations to an intensive effort to complete a new START treaty. No such cooperation on Iran is on the horizon. "I don't think we want to suggest that somehow . . . there's agreement about how to proceed," one U.S. briefer conceded.
The G-20 and NATO summits followed a similar pattern. Even before Obama traveled to Europe, his administration surrendered on the biggest U.S. priorities -- which were prompting Germany and other Western European countries to boost domestic spending and dispatch more troops and trainers to Afghanistan. With stimulus off the table, the economic summit centered on the platform of Germany and France -- expanding government regulation -- and on areas of general agreement, such as the provision of fresh funding for the IMF.
While the Europeans didn't get all they wanted, they succeeded in setting a framework for responding to the economic crisis that will tilt the global economy toward continental norms. The NATO summit showcased France's return to the alliance's command structure -- another initiative of French President Nicolas Sarkozy -- while offering only short-term contributions of troops for Afghanistan's elections this summer. Less than 2,000 trainers will join the 24,000 American reinforcements arriving in Afghanistan this year.
Obama's deferential approach was manifest in his public statements, which described shrinking U.S. influence as a positive development. At times the president sounded almost apologetic about past American primacy. "Last time you saw the entire international architecture being remade . . . it's just Roosevelt and Churchill sitting in a room with a brandy," he said at a news conference Thursday. "But that's not the world we live in. And that shouldn't be the world that we live in."
The president did offer a measured pitch for continued U.S. leadership. "America is a critical actor and leader on the world stage, and we shouldn't be embarrassed about that," he said in London. "But we exercise our leadership best when we are listening, when we recognize the world is a complicated place and that we are going to have to act in partnership with other countries, when we lead by example, when we show some element of humility and recognize we may not always have the best answer."
Other leaders were less humble; in fact, they appeared eager to exploit Obama's pliability. Sarkozy deemed his demands for more statism "nonnegotiable" and threatened a walkout if they weren't heeded. (They were.) German Chancellor Angela Merkel said she wasn't willing to even discuss the American appeal for more government spending. "That is not a bargaining chip," she tartly pronounced.
It could be that Obama's approach will prove effective over time. Once Russia is granted the place it craves as a nuclear negotiating partner of the United States, the prickly regime may prove more willing to toughen sanctions on Iran and North Korea in the name of countering proliferation. Obama's soft sell of U.S. leadership could go over well with European publics, if not with their leaders; that may increase receptivity to American proposals in areas such as energy and climate change.
For many around the world, Obama's diplomacy will certainly look like a refreshing change from that of George W. Bush. Yet in Washington, some may compare it to his handling of early domestic legislation, where he has allowed congressional Democrats to take control and set priorities. Is the new president shrewd and pragmatic about using his power at home and abroad -- or too passive, even weak? That's a question worth weighing as he heads back to Washington.
Even liberal commentators at the WaPo are realizing that Obama is a pussy. Weak and pathetic. We reelected Jimmy Carter.
The reason why your commentary has such resonance Hans, is that it's such a change from what you've said previously.
Diplomacy is about letting foreign states have your own way. It would not be much of a break with the previous administration's approach to international affairs if he turned and started throwing his weight around. He is not so much being a "pussy" as he is realising that this is not the time for threats and ultimatums. Sarkozy is weak politically back home; he needed to put on a show at the G20 with his hint that the French chair could be empty. Nevertheless he has defied his critics and fully reintegrated France back into the NATO command structure. Yet, somehow, this victory for Atlanticism and US interests is presented as a failure for Obama, because it was Sarkozy's idea. :lol:
On getting European governments to boost domestic spending, I am not sure what the article is saying. It seems a swipe at the Germans. yet for all Gordon Brown's bluster, the Germans are actually spending more as a percentage of GDP on stimulus packages than the British, and I do not hear wails about the UK package from the US.
As for Afghanistan, it is curious to paint the lack of European commitments as a black mark against Obama considering the unequal burden-sharing in NATO has been a problem for years and years, through the Reagan, Bush, Clinton and Bush II years. But now Obama is weak and ineffective because European governments are not going to increase military spending on operations during a worldwide economic crisis. :lol: At least blame the right people.
Quote from: Jacob on April 04, 2009, 05:17:58 PM
The reason why your commentary has such resonance Hans, is that it's such a change from what you've said previously.
Don't blame Hans; eight years of Bush administration "diplomacy " has made him deaf to anything that isn't as loud as F-14s taking off an air carrier during a metal concert.
Quote from: BuddhaRhubarb on March 31, 2009, 09:57:04 PM
Sure... other Nationalities like apologizing. None of us believe Americans do so out of any kind of sincerity though. :walksoftly&... :
Exactly. What's the point if whatever you do they hate you?
Quote from: Siege on April 04, 2009, 10:22:00 PM
Quote from: BuddhaRhubarb on March 31, 2009, 09:57:04 PM
Sure... other Nationalities like apologizing. None of us believe Americans do so out of any kind of sincerity though. :walksoftly&... :
Exactly. What's the point if whatever you do they hate you?
The Arabs say the same thing.
Quote from: Razgovory on April 04, 2009, 10:37:59 PM
Quote from: Siege on April 04, 2009, 10:22:00 PM
Quote from: BuddhaRhubarb on March 31, 2009, 09:57:04 PM
Sure... other Nationalities like apologizing. None of us believe Americans do so out of any kind of sincerity though. :walksoftly&... :
Exactly. What's the point if whatever you do they hate you?
The Arabs say the same thing.
What the hell are you talking about?
We treat arabs like children. We let them do things we would never tolerate on the West, and even justify it, blaming it on ourselves.
Can you name the last time ANY arab apologized for anything?
Quote from: Hansmeister on April 01, 2009, 09:26:45 PM
Quote from: Ancient Demon on April 01, 2009, 08:28:30 PM
There's no harm in talking nice to Russia, provided nothing important is given away.
This is what JFK thought, which is how he ended up careening from crisis to crisis.
Obama's groveling in response to continuous provocation is an embarrassement.
Embarrasing?
Worst, far worst.
You can be sure it is being read as weakness.
All the re-enlistment bonus have been cut by 15%.
What do you think our enemies see in this policy?
Quote from: Siege on April 04, 2009, 10:52:57 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on April 04, 2009, 10:37:59 PM
Quote from: Siege on April 04, 2009, 10:22:00 PM
Quote from: BuddhaRhubarb on March 31, 2009, 09:57:04 PM
Sure... other Nationalities like apologizing. None of us believe Americans do so out of any kind of sincerity though. :walksoftly&... :
Exactly. What's the point if whatever you do they hate you?
The Arabs say the same thing.
What the hell are you talking about?
We treat arabs like children. We let them do things we would never tolerate on the West, and even justify it, blaming it on ourselves.
Can you name the last time ANY arab apologized for anything?
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1003223,00.html that was easy.
Quote from: Razgovory on April 05, 2009, 12:55:24 AM
Quote from: Siege on April 04, 2009, 10:52:57 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on April 04, 2009, 10:37:59 PM
Quote from: Siege on April 04, 2009, 10:22:00 PM
Quote from: BuddhaRhubarb on March 31, 2009, 09:57:04 PM
Sure... other Nationalities like apologizing. None of us believe Americans do so out of any kind of sincerity though. :walksoftly&... :
Exactly. What's the point if whatever you do they hate you?
The Arabs say the same thing.
What the hell are you talking about?
We treat arabs like children. We let them do things we would never tolerate on the West, and even justify it, blaming it on ourselves.
Can you name the last time ANY arab apologized for anything?
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1003223,00.html that was easy.
Please nigga, we are not talking of random people here.
Quote from: Siege on April 04, 2009, 10:55:47 PM
Embarrasing?
Worst, far worst.
You can be sure it is being read as weakness.
All the re-enlistment bonus have been cut by 15%.
What do you think our enemies see in this policy?
That the US is going back to the Clinton-type policies of avoiding putting men on the ground, and when someone annoys them they get bombed?
Still, the US is wise not to waste money on soldiers.
Have the Arabs apologized for Siegy yet?
Quote from: Siege on April 05, 2009, 02:04:46 AM
Please nigga, we are not talking of random people here.
I was asked a question. I answered. The fault lies not with me but in your question.