xBullx
Posts: 4206
Joined: 10/8/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Aswad
However, Obama is more of a diplomat, whereas Romney is more of a strongman in this regard.
I'm not sure what Romney is at this point. Considering he's a seasoned businessman I suspect he will only negotiate from a position of strength, though I doubt that could classify him as a strongman. Actually he has been back and forth to some degree as to his demeanor. That happens with a Presidential Campaign that contains a primary season. I'm not happy about such things, but neither side is different in that regard, we heard the same things about Obama after his primary with Hillary.
I have given much thought much about what Obama might do in such a negotiation. I don’t see where at this point he has room to negotiate anything, so I hope he doesn’t attempt too. I stood on a border where we did have our weapons loaded or ready to fire and looked straight across an imaginary line into the eyes of men that were locked and loaded. Not an impressive degree of negotiating brought that forth in my opinion.
quote:
and the current situation needs a diplomat, because Putin isn't the sort to be bullied around. He isn't impressed that easily.
Agreed.
I don't like Putin and I don't believe we should pander to him. Honestly, I think the only way to keep a lid on Putin's rhetoric is to restore this economy and have a military that commands respect from our "foes". I'm not implying war or any Bush like saber rattling. If the boys are strong and ready to goes as we were during the Cold War, we have bargaining strength in which we need not surrender position to appease the tyrant.
quote:
Cool, composed, callous and calculating, that would seem an apt description. A hard man, for better or worse. And the world cannot afford two hard men going head to head with nuclear weapons. The USA can, however, afford to negotiate about how to achieve the USA's goals without the side effects Putin cannot (and should not) tolerate. Obama can handle that situation, and Russia has essentially said they'll hold off on a decision until after the election, because they're willing to proceed with negotiations with Obama, but don't trust that anything will carry over from one president to the next.
So you think we should negotiate with Putin because he will not?
quote:
Here is a simple rundown about Russia's perspective:
NATO wants to place a missile shield in Poland, for ostensibly legitimate reasons. The missile shield diminishes the Russian second strike capability. Without the ability to retaliate with second strike, the power balance of mutually assured destruction is lost. Putin is a Cold War era KGB man, and Romney is a bit of a hawk, so the situation clearly isn't reassuring, at least. If the USA should decide, under Romney, it wants to launch a first strike when Russia has diminished capacity for retaliation, then Russia is screwed.
Do you seriously believe that the US seeks a first strike for absolutely no reason? Hell, if it was a Russia that didn’t have the KGB in charge I’d suggest we offer them missile defense technology in order to demonstrate we do not seek war.
Personally I’m for any method that will rid us of nuclear weapons.
Concurrently how is it that you are so sure that Romney is this war monger you seemingly have him made out to be? Hell, Obama has continued a good number of war time actions that Bush maintained.
quote:
The resolution, of course, is to bomb the missile installation out of existence before the problem arises. That involves a preemptive strike on Polish territory, directed at a NATO facility. I need not explain how NATO will view that. NATO will have no problem getting UN support for considering that an act of war and thus legitimizing a counterattack. Article 5 dictates that all NATO allies participate in the conflict, on the side of the USA. With a level-headed president there would be no such attack, as the cold facts dictate that an attack on Russia isn't a sensible course of action under any other circumstance than global nuclear war.
Why is it that you view Putin as having only this one recourse? And I agree about having a level headed President in the US, Russia should have a level headed President as well.
If Putin is this volatile and demanding perhaps this missile defense system is a must.
I mean, what’s the difference if we have these missile defense platforms in Poland, Belgium, Britain or on our coast line? The effect is the same.
quote:
Now, there are several ways to resolve this on NATO's side.
Russia has been extremely forthcoming, even to the point of saying they will let it go if NATO will give them written assurances that the missile shield will not be used against Russia.
I’m ok with that, so long as they don’t shoot a damn missile our direction.
quote:
They're willing to let a flimsy piece of paper (to you and me, a handshake is solid, but not so to most heads of state) reassure them, despite our long standing tradition of systematically breaking our word every time we give it. This time, NATO won't even give that word. You tell me: how is Putin supposed to interpret that, other than that NATO indeed does intend to use the missile shield against Russia? And why would we be willing to risk a war to put a missile shield in place, unless we're planning a war already? Those thoughts must have occured to Putin already, and I doubt he finds them pleasant to consider.
I better understand of your point now. I assure you that I don’t know a single American that wants a war with Russia, Iran might be a different story, we’re sick of their shit.
Pondering this some, oil territory could be an issue here. Perhaps that is where we should already be resting our diplomacy. This is one of those areas that I firmly support Obama’s drive to rid us, and in fact the entire world its collective need for fossil fuels. However I’m sure that will ignite an entirely new legion of issues.
Hmmmmm, serious consideration must be levied here, I can’t logically comment much further.
quote:
Obama can get traction on this point, seeing as Russia really wants a peaceful resolution.
I think, no I insist we want a peaceful solution to this as well. I don’t see Romney as the kind that would sell out our children and their world in this manner.
You have me thinking Aswad, thank you.
quote:
Romney has said he'll force the matter, in a way that would make it treason for Putin not to attack the installation. I (dis)credit Putin with many things, but I do not think he's the sort of man to commit treason, not even in the privacy of his own heart. He cannot, and will not, give up Russia's defenses against a nuclear strike (i.e. the deterrent of a second strike in retaliation). Romney is saying "I'll go ahead with it anyway", which is provoking a war, whether knowingly or from willful ignorance.
Romney doesn’t strike me as a Bush type Cowboy, I don’t think he is meaning this in the way you are perceiving it, but as I said, I’m going to investigate.
I’m going to dig into this mess a bit Aswad, thank you.
quote:
The most telling thing to me on this point is: the Russians are willing to listen when Obama speaks.
That's one hell of a vote of confidence right there.
I understand your point, but considering Putin is KGB, that is reason enough for me to distrust his regard for Obama.
quote:
Putin was the president all along, he just wasn't The President (in name) for a short while.
Additional reason to distrust the whole mess over there.
quote:
Discretion can be the better part of valor in politics, sometimes. There are interests on both sides that would like to see a real conflict, or at least a return to a Cold War situation. To keep the talks private and informal can make a lot of headway without getting the extremists and the nationalists (by which I don't mean mere patriots) involved in a bad way. Clinton did that when hashing out the Oslo Accords, for instance, which was arguably a step in the right direction for the Middle East.
There is no valor in politics… To think so is foolish. Politicians have been the bane of free men since that notion of their existence.
quote:
It wasn't a major secret around these parts. Seeing as we share a border with Russia, and a tangled past with the Soviets, we pay close attention to the comings and goings over there. Indeed, it was never a given that we would come down on the side of the USA in the cold war, except the Soviets bungled some things during the time of the Nazi occupation, and the USA extended a hand in friendship at the right time. Roosevelt may have suggested that free people should look to Norway, but in the process, he accomplished having the people of Norway look to the USA, rather than to the Soviets. Some pretty strong ties have been established over the years since then. But we do have a past with the Soviets, and a shared border with Russia, both of which conspire to make them a more relevant part of the news for us than they're likely to be for you (and it's easier to get straight answers when some people here have retained social ties there).
I understand. Could I trouble you to keep us informed as time marches on?
quote:
Most likely, Obama was making preliminary inquiries, scouting to get the lay of the land.
Any eventual negotiations proper will have to be open and transparent for either side to get what they want out of it, so I wouldn't worry about this.
I’m not worried about transparent negotiations over there, its over here we have been having issues with that.
quote:
Putin is Putin. I don't think Obama has a problem dealing with him. And, crucially, Putin doesn't seem to have a problem with Obama.
Again, something right there that troubles me.
quote:
It's like with the humanitarian efforts during the Afghan war: if you want men in Afghanistan to listen, you don't send a woman to talk to them, and if you want women in Afghanistan to speak freely, you don't send a man to talk to them. The reasons may make no sense to our way of thinking,
Actually you know me well enough to know these things make perfect sense to me.
quote:
but they make perfect sense to the people we're talking to, and so we either choose not to communicate, or we choose to do the give and take thing. Obama is humble enough to put results ahead of his own pride, and I think he comes out of such things with that pride intact.
Obama is every bit as prideful as Romney, if he was willing to negotiate and that is the only quality it took, it’d be done already, he’d not have concerned himself with re-elections in matters so important. There is much more to this story than meets the eye, I assure you that.
quote:
That Putin has some measure of respect for Obama seems promising. I don't see Putin punking anyone he doesn't respect. With the Chechnyans, he hasn't bothered at all. With the journalists that have been chewing him out, he has simply eliminated them in a very dismissive and dispassionate manner. And if we stop to think, you and I have traded a few jabs on occasion and I don't think we came out of that any worse for the wear; there seems to be solid mutual respect in place.
I haven’t seen them exchange any jabs though.
quote:
Appeasing Putin doesn't really come into it, because of the missile shield thing.
There are areas where one may need to stand up to the guy, but this is one where it's a question of provoking. I think we can agree there is a huge difference between provoking someone and simply not appeasing them. And I think Obama is capable of rationally weighing the need to be firm against the cost of conflict, and assessing the risks.
I hope you are correct on that, and not correct about Romney.
quote:
I also think he knows the difference between a legitimate grievance and mere posturing. Russia has done plenty of posturing, but they currently have a legitimate grievance that Obama is best suited to dealing with (or so I think). If nothing else, Obama already has an open ear that's listening attentively to his words, and that's a damn good place to start.
If you are correct, I would agree.
quote:
Putin probably doesn't like the USA, but I think it's more a question of liking Russia than of disliking the USA. More to the point, he knows his situation and his limits. If he chooses to expand, by politics or by conflict, he knows not to reach further than the old borders of the USSR. The cost of even a low intensity war on a single front would be immense for either country, and it would always carry with it a looming threat of a nuclear holocaust. Both sides can posture and rassle a bit, but if one side goes past that, it's not so much playing for keeps as choosing to die messily. Putin knows the score, and so does Obama.
I think everyone knows that.
quote:
The former USSR territories, or even just Russia itself, that's a pretty big sandbox.
I don't think Putin will credibly risk the extinction of our species just to get a slightly bigger one.
The possibility exists that he thinks he could win a nuclear war. If not why not help stop the nuclear race in the Middle East?
quote:
From here on the sidelines, that article seems very partisan.
To me, it appears Russia under Putin is becoming more like how the rest of the world is used to seeing the USA these past 12 years. For the USA to criticize that, at least without recognizing the same flaws about themselves, seems to be a case of- if you don't mind me saying so- classic American relativism and exceptionism. The main difference, as far as I can see, is that Russia is talking about preexisting interests and demanding to be respected as an equal in global politics, while the USA is- as is often the case- talking about wars of aggression, about taking the first step, and doing so well beyond its own borders or interests. Russia seems more honest and more content to stick to the Slavic part of the playground, but is otherwise becoming the Second America, which isn't really all that much of a Cold War spectre. There's always more than one side to the truth, and from here, seeing two of those sides, I can't really say Russia is very foe-like at the moment, whereas the USA has always been rather foe-like (even as seen by an ally).
And, let's face it, Putin and Russia deserve some respect.
I have a great respect for the Russian people. I’m also gaining additional understanding as to American perception with you. But then this is one of the reason many Americans get tired of hearing how war like and terrible we are. If you really examine the wars we have partaken in, none can in the end be laid solely at our doorstep.
quote:
A cultural civil war is the status quo, and has been for at least twentyfive centuries. It's how your current culture arose. Depending on what wins out, a cultural civil war may well be the best thing at the moment. To attain, if they can. Those words are quite applicable at this juncture. You have PM, in any case.
It’s better than the alternative.
quote:
In the end it is certain that the US can be rebuilt under Obama. What it will look like is the debate we’re having over here.
It will be more up to the people, I think. Especially with Obama.
It is quite possible that we might learn that first hand.
quote:
Bit short as introductions go, but we're opening the topic, at least.
You are always good for that!
< Message edited by xBullx -- 10/31/2012 7:16:48 PM >
_____________________________
Live well,
Bull
I'm not an asshole; I'm simply resolute...
"A Republic, If You Can Keep It."
Caution: My humor is a bit skewed.
|
RE: Forward? - 
Profile
? 
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread