Look at the foreign policy aspects from a non partisan and different angle as has been taken in the US in the last 10 yrs (so, a European take, maybe):

Obama has reached a great diplomatic goal that was unthinkable just some short time ago:

- By cancelling the missiles he managed to get the Russians to promise (and - see the discovery of the "secret" plant - comply) to get a hand on Iran and control them as far as nukes production was concerned (also, see the uproar in the Iranian government, to smother their arms sales to a believable level)

- in China he closed the gap that was missing in this most important issue for world peace: He managed to talk China to the same line as Russia, effectively cancelling in 6 month two of Irans hardest non-islamic supporters and even turning them around, for a small price.

By this way he has managed - for the moment - to stall what looked like an unevitable war against those guys, be it from UN, NATO, US or Israel, with all its foreseeable diplomatic and economic consequences.

Earning his peace nobel price, it seems from my POV.

Oh, major player Hungary and even the super power Poland are not happy?

That, indeed, really *is* an argument against such negotiations that result in Russia, US and China pulling the same rope in the same direction for once in the last 12 yrs, in an issue that had the whole world deeply disturbed, and as such it has to be taken into serious concern when judging Mr. Obamas diplomatic qualities.

The US *needs* to keep Hungary and Polonia happy, they are the corner stone in US foreign policy strategy to neutralize the Iran problem! Why, oh why! does Mr. Obama not understand that? What if they vote "No" in the SC???

Rattler

Originally Posted by rattler

Look at the foreign policy aspects from a non partisan and different angle as has been taken in the US in the last 10 yrs (so, a European take, maybe):

Obama has reached a great diplomatic goal that was unthinkable just some short time ago:

- By cancelling the missiles he managed to get the Russians to promise (and - see the discovery of the "secret" plant - comply) to get a hand on Iran and control them as far as nukes production was concerned (also, see the uproar in the Iranian government, to smother their arms sales to a believable level)

- in China he closed the gap that was missing in this most important issue for world peace: He managed to talk China to the same line as Russia, effectively cancelling in 6 month two of Irans hardest non-islamic supporters and even turning them around, for a small price.

By this way he has managed - for the moment - to stall what looked like an unevitable war against those guys, be it from UN, NATO, US or Israel, with all its foreseeable diplomatic and economic consequences.

Earning his peace nobel price, it seems from my POV.

Oh, major player Hungary and even the super power Poland are not happy?

That, indeed, really *is* an argument against such negotiations that result in Russia, US and China pulling the same rope in the same direction for once in the last 12 yrs, in an issue that had the whole world deeply disturbed, and as such it has to be taken into serious concern when judging Mr. Obamas diplomatic qualities.

The US *needs* to keep Hungary and Polonia happy, they are the corner stone in US foreign policy strategy to neutralize the Iran problem! Why, oh why! does Mr. Obama not understand that? What if they vote "No" in the SC???

Rattler

What did he get russia & China both to move on? whatever it is, it seems to have not made the news here in the States. And what "Controls" on Iran?

Originally Posted by George

What did he get russia & China both to move on? whatever it is, it seems to have not made the news here in the States. And what "Controls" on Iran?

Actually if you followed news outside Fox and read daily papers that are not yellow press centered, you would know. But, it is also on the net, here for your convinience, and just for example as there are many more "small" tid bits to paint the overall picture (check the dates and make up your mind):

Russian angle:

http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id...onid=351020104
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8362023.stm
http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id...onid=351020101
http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/n.p...ing-2009-11-11
http://www.stratfor.com/weekly/20091...d_biden_speech

China angle:

http://www.reuters.com/article/polit...5AG1HV20091117
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20091117/...a_china_iran_1
http://www.tehrantimes.com/index_View.asp?code=208184

and so on, do your own google and compare it to a google on the same phrases 3 month ago...

Questions?

Rattler

Originally Posted by rattler

Actually if you followed news outside Fox and read daily papers that are not yellow press centered, you would know. But, it is also on the net, here for your convinience, and just for example as there are many more "small" tid bits to paint the overall picture (check the dates and make up your mind):

Russian angle:

http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id...onid=351020104
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8362023.stm
http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id...onid=351020101
http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/n.p...ing-2009-11-11
http://www.stratfor.com/weekly/20091...d_biden_speech

China angle:

http://www.reuters.com/article/polit...5AG1HV20091117
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20091117/...a_china_iran_1
http://www.tehrantimes.com/index_View.asp?code=208184

and so on, do your own google and compare it to a google on the same phrases 3 month ago...

Questions?

Rattler

Actually I watch NBC & haven't seen any glowing reports of accomplishment.

Originally Posted by George

Actually I watch NBC & haven't seen any glowing reports of accomplishment.

Your prob then.

Rattler

Doesn't seem to be much enthusiasm to support President Obama's foreign policy. May be this is why?

"Gallup Daily tracking from Nov. 17-19 shows President Barack Obama’s job approval slipping to 49% for the first time in his presidency. Among post-World War II presidents, only Gerald Ford, Bill Clinton, and Ronald Reagan dropped below the symbolic majority approval level faster than Obama did."

http://www.gallup.com/tag/Presidenti...bApproval.aspx

Reagan was a love him or hate him president, and Clinton was a damned good president. Remember, hindsight is 20/20.

Originally Posted by Rob Henderson

and Clinton was a damned good president.

Clinton started out the same way Obama has, way Left policies such as Hillarycare that even the Democrat Controlled Congress didn't go along with. The Republican takeover of Congress in'94 forced him to the Center. Even then he resisted much of the Republican agenda untill polling showed massive support for things like the balanced budget. we'll see what happens a year from now.

Originally Posted by George

Clinton started out the same way Obama has, way Left policies such as Hillarycare that even the Democrat Controlled Congress didn't go along with. The Republican takeover of Congress in'94 forced him to the Center. Even then he resisted much of the Republican agenda untill polling showed massive support for things like the balanced budget. we'll see what happens a year from now.

You're amazing; I've never seen anyone try to slant so many things to look like it was done by one side.

Did you by chance work for a Soviet Information Bureau?

Originally Posted by The Other Guy

You're amazing; I've never seen anyone try to slant so many things to look like it was done by one side.

Did you by chance work for a Soviet Information Bureau?

i didn't even mention his vetoing the balanced budget, what, 3 times before he finally signed on.