Is Handshaking and Talking a Sign of Weakness?

[Siddhartha]

Originally posted by: PC Surgeon

Originally posted by: Jaskalas

Originally posted by: Siddhartha
Topic Title: Are Handshaking and Talking a Sign of Weakness?
Topic Summary: Do they deliver the wrong message?

Depends on the message. BTW, what WAS Obama's message?

"And so if we are practicing what we preach and if we occasionally confess to having strayed from our values and our ideals, that strengthens our hand," Obama said. "That allows us to speak with greater moral force and clarity around these issues."

Sounds weak, like he is apologizing for Bush. He might as well have bent over while delivering it.

This is the only topic of discussion where I found myself disagreeing with you. I think that setting aside preconceived notions, and presenting ourselves as equals, opens the doors previously closed. If we are then rejected after abasing ourselves then the fault falls on them and will be seen as so by the rest of the world. This gives us credibility on the national stage that previously didn't exist.

How is talking to countries an abasement?

 

[NoStateofMind]

Originally posted by: Siddhartha

Originally posted by: PC Surgeon

Originally posted by: Jaskalas

Originally posted by: Siddhartha
Topic Title: Are Handshaking and Talking a Sign of Weakness?
Topic Summary: Do they deliver the wrong message?

Depends on the message. BTW, what WAS Obama's message?

"And so if we are practicing what we preach and if we occasionally confess to having strayed from our values and our ideals, that strengthens our hand," Obama said. "That allows us to speak with greater moral force and clarity around these issues."

Sounds weak, like he is apologizing for Bush. He might as well have bent over while delivering it.

This is the only topic of discussion where I found myself disagreeing with you. I think that setting aside preconceived notions, and presenting ourselves as equals, opens the doors previously closed. If we are then rejected after abasing ourselves then the fault falls on them and will be seen as so by the rest of the world. This gives us credibility on the national stage that previously didn't exist.

How is talking to countries an abasement?

Compare it to the last eight years then ask yourself that question.

 

[fallout man]

Originally posted by: bozack

Originally posted by: loki8481
because you legitimize them and their views

Going out of your way to be nice to someone like Chavez is silly, he is a petty dictator that despises the US, the only reason he is being "nice" to the messiah is because he wants to ride the coat tails of his popularity.

This is why Citgo ran a program to subsidize low-income US families' heating oil for the few years where the costs has sky-rocketed (when Bush was president lol). He really hates us capitalist pigs.

 

[nageov3t]

Originally posted by: fallout man

Originally posted by: bozack

Originally posted by: loki8481
because you legitimize them and their views

Going out of your way to be nice to someone like Chavez is silly, he is a petty dictator that despises the US, the only reason he is being "nice" to the messiah is because he wants to ride the coat tails of his popularity.

This is why Citgo ran a program to subsidize low-income US families' heating oil for the few years where the costs has sky-rocketed (when Bush was president lol). He really hates us capitalist pigs.

was his purpose in doing it being a humanitarian or making it look like the US couldn't take care of its own citizens?

 

[fallout man]

Originally posted by: loki8481

Originally posted by: fallout man

Originally posted by: bozack

Originally posted by: loki8481
because you legitimize them and their views

Going out of your way to be nice to someone like Chavez is silly, he is a petty dictator that despises the US, the only reason he is being "nice" to the messiah is because he wants to ride the coat tails of his popularity.

This is why Citgo ran a program to subsidize low-income US families' heating oil for the few years where the costs has sky-rocketed (when Bush was president lol). He really hates us capitalist pigs.

was his purpose in doing it being a humanitarian or making it look like the US couldn't take care of its own citizens?

I think his purpose was you know... out of some kind of international compassion... one of those things called "an olive branch" you only send to those who you'd like to listen to you.

Sure, it was a PR move, but it helped a lot of American families. It's a favorite time for jackoffs to only see the negative. Chavez put his money (literally) where his mouth is when he subsidized low-income Americans' heating oil while deriding their government.

It certainly wasn't implied that the US can't take care of its own. The US hasn't been able to since way before Chavez was a twinkle in his father's eye.

 

[umbrella39]

Originally posted by: loki8481

I never did understand why talking to countries was an improper thing to do.

because you legitimize them and their views

O RLY?

 

[frostedflakes]

Originally posted by: loki8481

Originally posted by: frostedflakes
Of course not. I think it shows a lot of maturity that we can put our political differences aside and look at where we can find common ground to improve the Americas as a whole.

I also don't understand how Gingrich (or anyone, for that matter) can still think shunning Cuba is appropriate. This has been our policy for decades and obviously it hasn't worked. It's also hypocritical considering we are already buddy-buddy with a number of nations that don't necessarily share all of our ideals (China, Saudi Arabia, etc.). If people want the situation in Cuba to improve, opening up trade and letting foreign investment flow in seems like the best way to do this.

I don't recall China ever calling the USA the "biggest menace to our planet."

and while Chavez gets some legitimacy and PR out of this, what is the US getting? Obama's job is to advance his country's interests and Chavez hasn't shown any inclination to change anything that might benefit us in any possible way.

I was more referring to Cuba. I'll agree that Chavez can be pretty abrasive, but I look at this as a chance to start with a clean slate. To be fair, a lot of Chavez's criticism of the previous administration wasn't unwarranted. Obviously if we push people, they tend to push back.

I think Venezuela would be much better off without Chavez, but he's there and there's nothing we can do about it, so might as well make the best out of the situation.

 

[jpeyton]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: PC Surgeon

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Originally posted by: loki8481

I never did understand why talking to countries was an improper thing to do.

because you legitimize them and their views

No. Legitimization comes with acceptance or deference, not with acknowledgement of existence. The idea that America is perfect and all should bow to our superior system and intellect is ignorant, arrogant, and intellectually and morally bankrupt. The "cold shoulder" doesn't get anywhere. it never has, it never will.

Absolutely. Basic foreign relations is to talk. The lack of this allows the mind to wonder and paranoia to take over. We haven't had a foreign policy worth a shit the last eight years and Obama seems bent on making that history. That's one "change" I can believe in.

Can you illustrate a major world problem that was solved via talking.

I can illustrate a lot of major world problems that were started by not talking.

 

[Jaskalas]

Originally posted by: n yusef

Originally posted by: Jaskalas

Originally posted by: n yusef
Have you considered that there may be more to diplomacy than the "strength" of ones words?

I oppose the notion that this is a time for humility towards our detractors. They need a stern message.

That may be so. However, you can give a stern message after a handshake or even a bow. We should concern ourselves not with Mr. Obama's etiquette, but with his policy.

You just said what I originally said, as if you were replying to me.

Originally posted by: Jaskalas

Originally posted by: Siddhartha
Topic Title: Are Handshaking and Talking a Sign of Weakness?
Topic Summary: Do they deliver the wrong message?

Depends on the message.

I'm not talking about Obama's proper etiquette, but rather his message. Which I proceeded to complain about being apologetic and bending over. That is not the proper message for a despot dictator like Huge Chavez.

Now, are you telling me that the message itself is etiquette, and Obama?s policy will not include bending over and apologizing? Cause as far as I'm concerned the message IS his policy and it is wrong.

 

[Jaskalas]

Originally posted by: Craig234
That's how Troglodyte's work - whether it's the mafia who wiill tolerate plenty of evil by the boss, but if he 'goes soft' worrying about the victims of their crimes, they oppose him, or a nation's dctator who might use terrible means to keep power, but is viewed as 'weak' if he reduces the abuses.

Cutting out your personal attacks, (which I'm sure the mods care deeply) you're telling us socalist dictators are victims of crimes by the United States? People like Chavez should be strung up, not apologized to. He SHOULD be our victim.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: Siddhartha
I never did understand why talking to countries was an improper thing to do.

The ghost of Neville Chamberlain agrees with you.

That's absolutely ridiculous. I'm not sure what ultra-right place you got the idea that speaking to other countries was 'appeasement' but for your own sake crack open a history book and read about what actually happened between Chamberlain and Hitler. Then maybe you'll stop trying to claim that speaking to Venezuela is the equivalent of sanctioning the subjugation of Czechoslovakia.

As for diplomacy not solving issues, are you crazy? Diplomacy is how nearly every issue on the planet is resolved. Do you have any idea how many issues and rubs come up between countries each year, and yet how few wars erupt? It's almost like they talk their issues out or something. Crazy.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: loki8481

Originally posted by: frostedflakes
Of course not. I think it shows a lot of maturity that we can put our political differences aside and look at where we can find common ground to improve the Americas as a whole.

I also don't understand how Gingrich (or anyone, for that matter) can still think shunning Cuba is appropriate. This has been our policy for decades and obviously it hasn't worked. It's also hypocritical considering we are already buddy-buddy with a number of nations that don't necessarily share all of our ideals (China, Saudi Arabia, etc.). If people want the situation in Cuba to improve, opening up trade and letting foreign investment flow in seems like the best way to do this.

I don't recall China ever calling the USA the "biggest menace to our planet."

and while Chavez gets some legitimacy and PR out of this, what is the US getting? Obama's job is to advance his country's interests and Chavez hasn't shown any inclination to change anything that might benefit us in any possible way.

While I don't remember China calling us meany faced names, I do remember us fighting a gigantic war with China that killed about 40,000 of our soldiers and wounded thousands and thousands more. Then we made peace with the exact same regime that sneak attacked us (in our opinion) about 20 years later.

If our country can get over tens of thousands of our people killed, we can probably get over Chavez making a frowny face at us.

 

[nageov3t]

I thought this was a good read...

Americas Summit: Missed Opportunity

If President Barack Obama's goal at the fifth Summit of the Americas in Trinidad and Tobago this weekend was to be better liked by the region's dictators and left-wing populists than his predecessor George W. Bush, the White House can chalk up a win.

If, on the other hand, the commander in chief sought to advance American ideals, things didn't go well. As the mainstream press reported, Mr. Obama seemed well received. But the freest country in the region took a beating from Venezuela's Hugo Chávez, Bolivia's Evo Morales, and Nicaragua's Danny Ortega.

Ever since Bill Clinton organized the first Summit of the Americas in 1994 in Miami, this regional gathering has been in decline. It seemed to hit its nadir in 2005 in Mar del Plata, Argentina, when President Nestór Kirchner allowed Mr. Chávez and his revolutionary allies from around the region to hold a massive, American-flag burning hate-fest in a nearby stadium with the goal of humiliating Mr. Bush. This year things got even worse with the region's bullies hogging the limelight and Mr. Obama passing up a priceless opportunity to defend freedom.

Mr. Obama had to know that the meeting is used by the region's politicians to rally the base back home by showing that they can put Uncle Sam in his place. Realizing this, the American president might have arrived at the Port of Spain prepared to return their volley. They have, after all, tolerated and even encouraged for decades one of the most repressive regimes of the 20th century. In recent years, that repression has spread from Cuba to Venezuela, and today millions of Latin Americans live under tyranny. As the leader of the free world, Mr. Obama had the duty to speak out for these voiceless souls. In this he failed.

The subject of Cuba was a softball that the American president could have hit out of the park. He knew well in advance that his counterparts would pressure him to end the U.S. embargo. He even prepared for that fact a few days ahead of the summit by unconditionally lifting U.S. restrictions on travel and remittances to the island, and offering to allow U.S. telecom companies to bring technology to the backward island.

Think that helped cast the U.S. in a better light in the region? Fat chance. Raúl Castro responded on Friday from Venezuela with a long diatribe against the Yankee oppressor and a cool offer to negotiate on "equal" terms. In case you don't speak Cuban, I'll translate: The Castro brothers want credit from U.S. banks because they have defaulted on the rest of the world, and no one will lend to them anymore. They also want foreign aid from the World Bank.

Anyone who thinks that Raúl is ruminating over free elections is dreaming. Nevertheless, the Cuba suggestion to put "everything" on the table became the "news" of the summit. And while it is true that Mr. Obama mentioned political prisoners in his list of items that U.S. wants to negotiate, he could have done much more. Indeed, he could have called Raúl's bluff by putting the spotlight on the prisoners of conscience, by naming names. He could have talked about men like Afro-Cuban pacifist Oscar Elias Biscet, who has written eloquently about his admiration for Martin Luther King Jr., and today sits in jail for the crime of dissent.

The first black U.S. president could have named hundreds of others being held in inhumane conditions by the white dictator. He could have also asked Brazil's President Lula da Silva, Chile's President Michelle Bachelet and Mexico's Felipe Calderón where they stand on human rights for all Cubans. Imagine if Mr. Obama asked for a show of hands to find out who believes Cubans are less deserving of freedom than, say, the black majority in South Africa under apartheid or Chileans during the Pinochet dictatorship. Then again, that would be no way to win a popularity contest or to ingratiate yourself with American supporters who are lining up to do business in Cuba.

Instead the U.S. president simply floated down the summit river passively bouncing off whatever obstacles he encountered. The Chávez "gift" of the 1971 leftist revolutionary handbook "Open Veins of Latin America" followed by a suggestion of renewing ambassadorial relations was an insult to the American people. Granted, giving the Venezuelan attention would have been counterproductive. But Mr. Obama ought to have complained loudly about that country's aggression. It has supported Colombian terrorists, drug trafficking and Iran's nuclear ambitions. As former CIA director Michael Hayden told Fox News Sunday, "the behavior of President Chávez over the past years has been downright horrendous -- both internationally and with regard to what he's done internally inside Venezuela."

Too bad Mr. Obama didn't have a copy of the late 1990s bestseller "The Perfect Latin American Idiot" as a gift for Mr. Chávez. Another way Mr. Obama could have neutralized the left would have been to announce a White House push for ratification of the U.S.-Colombia Free Trade Agreement. That didn't happen either. He only promised to talk some more, a strategy that will offend no one and accomplish nothing. It is a strategy that sums up, to date, Mr. Obama's foreign policy for the region.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124018390302433097.html

 

[fskimospy]

Color me shocked that the WSJ editorial page didn't like something Obama did. I do find it funny that they think Obama should have played the race card by calling for the release of black people held by the white man.

 

[Pocatello]

The U.S is not at war with Venezuela or Cuba. Why we shouldn't have a better relationship with them is beyond me. We can have a greater influence with countries we talk to than the countries we ignore.

 

[SammyJr]

Originally posted by: loki8481

Originally posted by: fallout man

Originally posted by: bozack

Originally posted by: loki8481
because you legitimize them and their views

Going out of your way to be nice to someone like Chavez is silly, he is a petty dictator that despises the US, the only reason he is being "nice" to the messiah is because he wants to ride the coat tails of his popularity.

This is why Citgo ran a program to subsidize low-income US families' heating oil for the few years where the costs has sky-rocketed (when Bush was president lol). He really hates us capitalist pigs.

was his purpose in doing it being a humanitarian or making it look like the US couldn't take care of its own citizens?

I think its a matter of wouldn't take care of its own citizens. We take care of bankers pretty well, though.

 

[Carmen813]

This is the very definition of a non-issue. The handshake and photo have absolutely no meaning what so ever unless you a complete partisan hack. American leaders have LONG met with foreign leaders, even dictators, and had their picture taken. FDR did it, Reagan did it, our former Secretary of Defense did it. I'm sure you can find photos over every single president from the past 80 years doing it.

 

[OCGuy]

Chavez completely embarassed Obama by doing a photo-op "America is the Devil" book moment, and our mainstream media didnt even cover it.

Thank god for the internet.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: OCguy
Chavez completely embarassed Obama by doing a photo-op "America is the Devil" book moment, and our mainstream media didnt even cover it.

Thank god for the internet.

Whuh oh! The 'librul media' strikes again! Someone should have told CNN that the librul media was supposed to be covering for Obama, because this was on their front page this morning. Not only that, but this was on CNN's front page yesterday. How many times does the myth of media bias need to be blown apart?

Oh, and Chavez didn't embarrass anyone.

 

[RKDaley]

They also covered it on the Today Show.
Though maybe they are not the "mainstream media" either?

 

[jpeyton]

Originally posted by: RKDaley
They also covered it on the Today Show.
Though maybe they are not the "mainstream media" either?

Think even more mainstream than that. OCguy is probably disappointed he didn't see it on the Bonnie Hunt Show, or wedged between Family Circus and his daily horoscope.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: OCguy
Chavez completely embarassed Obama by doing a photo-op "America is the Devil" book moment, and our mainstream media didnt even cover it.

Thank god for the internet.

"Adoph Hitler killed 10 million native americans, 10 million baby seals and 100 million puppies!"

"OJ Simson killed a thousand women!"

"Communism turned everyone who lived under it into complete mindless automaton slaves, who could only have sex in laboratories for meeting state birth quotas!"

Idiots overuse the fallacy of sarcastic exaggeration as one more way to lie.

A more accurate version:

Chavez gave Obama a book with a lot of correct information on immoral history, to help get the truth into his hands and prevent the repition of mistakes, and to improve relations.

How terrible for Hillary to pressure CHina or Iran on Human rights, or Chavez to pressure Obama on fair trade.

The fact is, the United States has had elected leaders of South American nations removed and assassinated over its business interests - it would take a special kind of gall to mock the people who tell the truth about that if he had a clue he was lying, but in the case of the poster above, it's just ignorance and idiocy to do so.

 

[RKDaley]

Originally posted by: jpeyton

Originally posted by: RKDaley
They also covered it on the Today Show.
Though maybe they are not the "mainstream media" either?

Think even more mainstream than that. OCguy is probably disappointed he didn't see it on the Bonnie Hunt Show, or wedged between Family Circus and his daily horoscope.

:laugh:

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: Jaskalas

Originally posted by: Craig234
That's how Troglodyte's work - whether it's the mafia who wiill tolerate plenty of evil by the boss, but if he 'goes soft' worrying about the victims of their crimes, they oppose him, or a nation's dctator who might use terrible means to keep power, but is viewed as 'weak' if he reduces the abuses.

Cutting out your personal attacks, (which I'm sure the mods care deeply) you're telling us socalist dictators are victims of crimes by the United States? People like Chavez should be strung up, not apologized to. He SHOULD be our victim.

You should feel good about Craig's personal attacks. I'm very proud to be considered the worst poster in the forum by Craig. It's just validation of everything I know to be correct, because he's one of the most horrible human beings with whom I've had the misfortune to cross paths.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: Carmen813
This is the very definition of a non-issue. The handshake and photo have absolutely no meaning what so ever unless you a complete partisan hack. American leaders have LONG met with foreign leaders, even dictators, and had their picture taken. FDR did it, Reagan did it, our former Secretary of Defense did it. I'm sure you can find photos over every single president from the past 80 years doing it.

I wouldn't include the sec of defense in that list of innocent contacts - he was there as part of a pretty evil policy to ally with Saddam for great harm to, among others, Iran.

It wasn't the sort of ceremonial greeting the other examples were. It was to tighten our relationship with Saddam for policies we later used to justify war against him about.