• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Is Handshaking and Talking a Sign of Weakness?

Page 5 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Originally posted by: ElFenix
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
And after the Cuban missile crisis the cold war continued for how many years??

jesus christ are you off base on this one
Talking didn't end the cold war, that is my point.

Talking may have ended that single crisis, but to suggest that talking changed the world for the better is a little naive.

In fact, it was when Reagan refused to talk to the Soviets and instead started building more weapons and placing missiles in Europe that the Soviets took notice and eventually changed their tune.

you're off base on equating a handshake with neville chamberlain getting off an airplane and saying we'll have peace in our time.

and even the cold war had a serious thawing. remember detente?

and it wasn't reagan that refused to talk with the soviets, it was andropov refusing to talk to the US (although even then there were talks).
 
Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Which contract are you speaking of? One of the ones which the Soviets ignored because it lacked any sort of verification??

No, the one Gorbachev and Reagan signed, you do realise that Gorbachev was NEVER a Russian president, right?
So you just proved my point.

The one Reagan and Gorbachev signed AFTER we changed our approach to the Soviets and after we started a large arms build up and placed missiles in Europe.

Prior to that the Soviets showed no interest in real arms reductions.
 
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Which contract are you speaking of? One of the ones which the Soviets ignored because it lacked any sort of verification??

No, the one Gorbachev and Reagan signed, you do realise that Gorbachev was NEVER a Russian president, right?
So you just proved my point.

The one Reagan and Gorbachev signed AFTER we changed our approach to the Soviets and after we started a large arms build up and placed missiles in Europe.

Prior to that the Soviets showed no interest in real arms reductions.
Well to be honest with you I prefer we not emulate the Pre Gorbachev Soviet Union.
 
Originally posted by: ElFenix
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Originally posted by: ElFenix
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
And after the Cuban missile crisis the cold war continued for how many years??

jesus christ are you off base on this one
Talking didn't end the cold war, that is my point.

Talking may have ended that single crisis, but to suggest that talking changed the world for the better is a little naive.

In fact, it was when Reagan refused to talk to the Soviets and instead started building more weapons and placing missiles in Europe that the Soviets took notice and eventually changed their tune.

you're off base on equating a handshake with neville chamberlain getting off an airplane and saying we'll have peace in our time.

and even the cold war had a serious thawing. remember detente?

and it wasn't reagan that refused to talk with the soviets, it was andropov refusing to talk to the US (although even then there were talks).
Talking did not end the cold war though. Confronting the Soviets, giving arms to Afghan fighters, building up our weapons systems and taking steps to undermine their economy were what ended the cold war. The Soviet empire collapsed because of the pressure we exerted on it.

Go back and read up in depth on the difference in Reagan's approach and those before him. Look at the people in the 60s who suggested that the Soviet Union would be around forever and that we should work on finding ways to live with them and peacefully co-exist.

While all these great left wing thinkers were talking about getting along with the Soviets Reagan was walking around saying:
"Here's my strategy on the Cold War: We win, they lose."

We can talk to Chavez all day long, but nothing will come of it unless Chavez changes his ways. Chavez is a petty dictator who stands for everything we are against as a country.

What's that say? "The road to hell is paved with good intentions."
 
my head just exploded... even Eugene Robinson criticized Obama over this.

it's impossible to overlook his anti-democratic methods of silencing his critics and neutralizing any potential opposition. Even though he uses Venezuela's oil to bolster the Castro regime in Cuba, Chávez is hardly a by-the-book socialist. He's more of an old-style Latin American strongman, a caudillo, and that's no model for the 21st century.

Chávez can be charming. But when Obama shook the man's hand, he should have telegraphed clearly, through posture, expression and language, that he was not amused. Chávez's gift of the book was meant to affront, not to enlighten, and I would have advised Obama to reciprocate in kind.

The other moment for presidential theatrics was Nicaraguan President Daniel Ortega's 50-minute speech excoriating, yes, the long and sordid history of U.S. meddling in Latin America. Asked later about Ortega's peroration, Obama replied curtly that "it was 50 minutes long."

Obama was correct not to walk out on the speech. But as was the case with Chávez's tendentious present, Ortega's speech was intended as a slap. When Obama spoke later, he should have prefaced his promising call for an "equal partnership" with other countries in the hemisphere with some strong pushback against those who would rather relive the insults of the past than move forward.

Granted, the history of U.S. involvement in Latin America is pretty sordid. And granted, Obama made clear that he intends no abdication of American leadership but rather a new atmosphere of mutual respect. Most of the assembled heads of government -- including Presidents Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva of Brazil and Felipe Calderón of Mexico, leaders of Latin America's two biggest economies -- responded to Obama's initiative graciously and with an eye toward the future.

Chávez, Ortega and a few others, however, made a show of being rude. A flash of presidential anger from Obama would have been in order.

My argument isn't that Obama should try to be someone he's not. It's that he's declining to use one of the tools at his disposal. As public anger over the U.S. bank bailouts was rising, a well-timed burst of presidential outrage might have allowed him to get out in front of it.

Obama was right to show respect for the leaders of neighboring countries big and small at the Summit of the Americas. Those who were not gracious enough to show respect for him deserved to be given -- metaphorically, of course, and in the spirit of hemispheric cooperation -- the back of the presidential hand.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/...0/AR2009042002814.html
 
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Originally posted by: ElFenix
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Originally posted by: ElFenix
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
And after the Cuban missile crisis the cold war continued for how many years??

jesus christ are you off base on this one
Talking didn't end the cold war, that is my point.

Talking may have ended that single crisis, but to suggest that talking changed the world for the better is a little naive.

In fact, it was when Reagan refused to talk to the Soviets and instead started building more weapons and placing missiles in Europe that the Soviets took notice and eventually changed their tune.

you're off base on equating a handshake with neville chamberlain getting off an airplane and saying we'll have peace in our time.

and even the cold war had a serious thawing. remember detente?

and it wasn't reagan that refused to talk with the soviets, it was andropov refusing to talk to the US (although even then there were talks).
Talking did not end the cold war though. Confronting the Soviets, giving arms to Afghan fighters, building up our weapons systems and taking steps to undermine their economy were what ended the cold war. The Soviet empire collapsed because of the pressure we exerted on it.

Go back and read up in depth on the difference in Reagan's approach and those before him. Look at the people in the 60s who suggested that the Soviet Union would be around forever and that we should work on finding ways to live with them and peacefully co-exist.

While all these great left wing thinkers were talking about getting along with the Soviets Reagan was walking around saying:
"Here's my strategy on the Cold War: We win, they lose."

We can talk to Chavez all day long, but nothing will come of it unless Chavez changes his ways. Chavez is a petty dictator who stands for everything we are against as a country.

What's that say? "The road to hell is paved with good intentions."

Haha, you think Reagan actually did something to stop the cold war. That is amazing.

No surprise that followers to the Cult of Reagan protest a method of dealing with South and Central American countries that doesn't involve killing people.
 
Originally posted by: CitizenKain
Haha, you think Reagan actually did something to stop the cold war. That is amazing.

No surprise that followers to the Cult of Reagan protest a method of dealing with South and Central American countries that doesn't involve killing people.
Please explain to me why the Soviet Union collapsed at the time that it did.

This wasn't a flash pan dictatorship, but a country and economic system that survived 69 years. So why did it collapse at the time it did?
 
*EDIT* I decided to be more civil.

I think it's unfair to say diplomacy didn't help, and many of the actions taken during the 1980s bit us in the ass. By funding the Afghan war against Russia we gave the Taliban and Al-Qaeda a place to come to power. In fact prior to the USSR collapse, Al-Qaeda was primarily concerned with attack them.

The weapons systems we developed during the 80s didn't come to fruition until recently. The JSF, F-22 are good examples. Other programs didn't work at all but sucked up massive resources, like Star Wars. In fact, one of the biggest problems with our budget crisis today is that the massive increase in military spending that occurred under Reagan didn't stop after the Cold War ended.

Prof John, saying that it was only Reagan who took down the Soviets is just inaccurate. The Cuban Missile Crisis was a *huge* deal, and that occurred with a Democrat in Charge. The Korean and Vietnam Wars, the Space Race, the post-WW2 economic recovery of Europe and Japan all played a major role.

Put another way, if Reagan had become President in 1950 instead of being a Hollywood Actor he would not have had the success he did in ending the USSR. His policies helped, but he had a great deal of assistance from the previous 40 years of diplomacy and war.

Also, as a quick aside, I think it's ironic that you indirectly cite his massive deficit spending as one way we toppled the USSR. Those weapon systems weren't free 🙂

 
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Originally posted by: CitizenKain
Haha, you think Reagan actually did something to stop the cold war. That is amazing.

No surprise that followers to the Cult of Reagan protest a method of dealing with South and Central American countries that doesn't involve killing people.
Please explain to me why the Soviet Union collapsed at the time that it did.

This wasn't a flash pan dictatorship, but a country and economic system that survived 69 years. So why did it collapse at the time it did?


Flash pan?
😕

Are you trying to say "Tin Pan" or "Flash in the Pan"?

They are two very different things.

 
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Originally posted by: CitizenKain
Haha, you think Reagan actually did something to stop the cold war. That is amazing.

No surprise that followers to the Cult of Reagan protest a method of dealing with South and Central American countries that doesn't involve killing people.
Please explain to me why the Soviet Union collapsed at the time that it did.

This wasn't a flash pan dictatorship, but a country and economic system that survived 69 years. So why did it collapse at the time it did?

I don't know, years of an unsustainable economy that had been in the process of collapsing for years due to a out of touch leadership and an economic policy that spent so much money on weapons that it collapsed on itself?
 
Originally posted by: jpeyton
GOP pwned again.
Interesting... the title of that video is "Clinton to Rep. Pence (R-IN): Obama Won the Election"

I seem to remember that when Bush came out and declared "I am the decider" that the left flipped out... how short their memories seem to be.
 
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Originally posted by: jpeyton
GOP pwned again.
Interesting... the title of that video is "Clinton to Rep. Pence (R-IN): Obama Won the Election"

I seem to remember that when Bush came out and declared "I am the decider" that the left flipped out... how short their memories seem to be.
And WTF does that have to do with you paranoid bullshit about talking with Chavez being a sign of weakness?
 
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Originally posted by: jpeyton
GOP pwned again.
Interesting... the title of that video is "Clinton to Rep. Pence (R-IN): Obama Won the Election"

I seem to remember that when Bush came out and declared "I am the decider" that the left flipped out... how short their memories seem to be.

People didn't flip out because Bush said that he was the one that made decisions on his cabinet, people thought the sound byte sounded funny.

How short memories are indeed.
 
On the subject of handshakes:
If you see a person offer their hand with palm down they are trying to be authoritative, up submissive.

Or if you see people entering a door and a person behind them puts their hand on the shoulder to guide them in the door, that is another sign that person is trying to assert being the dominant personality.


Great book I'm reading : http://www.amazon.com/Definiti...&qid=1240527310&sr=1-1

It is amazing what people reveal without realizing it.
 
Originally posted by: Modelworks
On the subject of handshakes:
If you see a person offer their hand with palm down they are trying to be authoritative, up submissive.

Or if you see people entering a door and a person behind them puts their hand on the shoulder to guide them in the door, that is another sign that person is trying to assert being the dominant personality.


Great book I'm reading : http://www.amazon.com/Definiti...&qid=1240527310&sr=1-1

It is amazing what people reveal without realizing it.

Do they discuss maintaining a stance of dominance in that book?
 
Originally posted by: Fear No Evil
Originally posted by: Modelworks
On the subject of handshakes:
If you see a person offer their hand with palm down they are trying to be authoritative, up submissive.

Or if you see people entering a door and a person behind them puts their hand on the shoulder to guide them in the door, that is another sign that person is trying to assert being the dominant personality.


Great book I'm reading : http://www.amazon.com/Definiti...&qid=1240527310&sr=1-1

It is amazing what people reveal without realizing it.

Do they discuss maintaining a stance of dominance in that book?

I think what you are asking is what they call in the book Claiming your space
 
I wonder what kind of world we would live in if the US never shook hands with Mao, Gorbachev, or Nguy?n Minh Tri?t (Vietnam) .......
 
Back
Top