chuckakers 370 #26 March 4, 2009 QuoteI've tried to discuss the issues with you. You don't listen. Discussion means two sides explaining their respective positions, considering what the other has to say, and responding thoughtfully. What you do is not discussion. The issue at hand is whether Obama should have approached Russia with a purported deal regarding the missile defense installations in Poland and support for Iran's nuclear program. If you actually read the articles you linked, or knew anything about the missile shield, you might have a better understanding of what that means. The stated goal of the missile shield has always been to reduce the threat of long range missiles from Middle Eastern states such as Iran. Whether or not that is actually the goal can be disputed. The shield wasn't Obama's idea, and suspect he knows the real purpose of it, namely leverage against Russian influence in the region. By writing a letter (which is obviously inaccurate to characterize as secret, since we're talking about it on a skydiving forum) Obama is just continuing the diplomatic dialogue over this issue that has been going on for years. If you want to argue that he should have continued with low-level, back channel dialogue instead of taking to the highest level, that is a legitimate argument. That he's just a giant fuck-up who doesn't understand the world is not. There, I've discussed the issue. Please now follow your usual MO and refuse to respond to anything I've said. Make sure, however, to reiterate your ill-informed position ad nauseum until everyone else gives up in frustration. I refuse to address the issue? When your reply does nothing more than question my knowledge of the subject (without stating YOURS, by the way), I call that not speaking to the issue. Telling me I'm not addressing the issue is simply not true, and appears to be a dodge more than anything else. Did you not read my last reply to you? I clearly did speak to the issue. For your convenience, here's what I said: >>>And to answer your other question, the "head of state" in question wrote SECRET letters after our nation was already in talks with two very important allies with opposing stated goals. Allies, get it? Allies. That DESTROYS the trust built over a very long time. It doesn't take a rocket scientist OR diplomat to figure out that's stupid. Unless of course you can shine some of your vast knowledge and credentials on the issue to show me where I'm wrong.<<<< Sure looks like I was discussing the issue. On the other hand, your response was: >>>I'm a rocket engineer with a degree in Foreign Affairs. Really. On the other hand, I never, unlike you, claimed to have vast knowledge. I just like pointing out the hypocrisy of the right wingers here.<<< That appears to be sarcasm followed by more untrue remarks about me claiming some "vast knowledge". And notice that no place in your reply (copied word for word as you wrote it) is there anything about the issue itself. Now back on pioint: To say the letter wasn't secret is a complete distortion. It WAS secret at the time it was written, and THAT's my point. To use the "oh gee Wally, Mr. Obama is just continuing previous talks" is a crock. We weren't in talks with Russia about this, we were in talks with Poland and the Czech republic. My LEGITIMATE argument isn't about carrying on talks at the highest level. I wouldn't have a problem with that if done in an intelligent way. However, Mr. O is stepping on his perverbial dick here. It is very unwise to attempt SECRET discussions with a country we can't trust when it can and likely will hurt relations with important ALLIES. This is exactly what I said in my original post. Not sure how many tmes I have to discuss the issue before you'll admit I'm discussing the issue. Now just to keep pace with you, please stick to your MO and reply with some slam about me not knowing what I'm talking about, and be sure to say I'm not addressing the issue - and throw in something rude about right wingers while you're at it.Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
chuckakers 370 #27 March 4, 2009 Quote>Trust is about all diplomatic relationships have going for them . . . I should keep a count of the screeching 180's conservatives are doing here. "Are you an idiot? Do you really want Bush to broadcast his intentions to terrorists? Of COURSE we need to keep some things secret from our enemies." "Can you believe that bastard Obama is KEEPING SECRETS?" I think you're confused, Bill. I'm talking about B.O. keeping secrets from ALLIES while talking SECRETLY to ENEMIES, not the other way around.Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
chuckakers 370 #28 March 4, 2009 Quote Quote Quote Wait! The biased evil liberal media is printing secret letters from Obama? They're not protecting him? They can't be blamed for this? I think a few conservative's heads are going to explode . . . . Tough to defend him when Medvidev has admitted getting the letters on Russian TV. Really? All Things Considered, March 3, 2009 · Both the U.S. and Russia are denying that any secret deal is in the works concerning missile defense and Iran. The denials follow a front-page story in Tuesday's New York Times reporting that President Obama sent a "secret letter" to Moscow, suggesting he would back off deploying a missile defense system in Eastern Europe if Moscow would help stop Iran from developing its nuclear weapons program. 1:28 - reporter says Medvedev has confirmed e-mails with B.O. on the issue. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KNI-h5Azz8MChuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nerdgirl 0 #29 March 4, 2009 The top issue: Prioritizing US foreign policy interests. From a realist perspective US strategic foreign policy interests supersede everything else. If the President and his NSC (led by a retired Marine general if we remember) consider halting Iranian nuclear weapons capability (the secondary issue) more important for US strategic interests than perpetuating an destabilizing, economically-wasteful (the Polish people don’t want missile defense; the Polish government wants US money to maintain a station at now-defunct Redzikowo air base without deploying any interceptors – great deal for *them,* e.g., $720M to “prepare” the base [read: fix what’s fallen apart at the old Cold War-era Eastern bloc airbase] agreement brokered by the previous administration that does not counter what the last administration considered the top WMD threat to the US homeland (nuclear terrorism, i.e., the tertiary issue) or this administration is likely to concur – yea! (70% of Czechs don’t want the radar system deployed in their country.) That’s the argument from realist, US strategic interest perspective. If one wants to argue from a neo-liberal institutionalist perspective – that agreements made by previous administrations take precedence (not the stance I would have thought for you … but it’s nice to be surprised Additionally, *if* one is arguing the issue from position that previous agreements must take precedence over any other factor, one must advocate for and have objected to failure to follow through on the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaties efforts, initiated by President Reagan, the 1st signed by President GHW Bush, and second negotiated by President Clinton must be acknowledged as poor choices. And the discarding of Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) treaty, signed by President Richard Nixon was a worst decision. (Again, *if* one is making the argument that one must continue foreign policies of previous administrations. *If* the issue is instead prioritizing US strategic interests, then that argument becomes tenuous as US strategic interests change.) Additionally, if one is to maintain consistency with the argument that made regarding maintaining previous administrations 'deals' as the highest priority (which is not diplomacy-based & is not my argument), will you also be advocating for US fulfillment of Article VI of the NPT (on disarmament)? That was signed by President LB Johnson and ratified under and proclaimed by President Richard Nixon. I can go through a list of agreements signed and later discarded or not followed through on. Examples from recent history include the Geneva Protocol, CTBT and the Kyoto treaties and the ad hoc verification protocol for the Biological Weapons Convention (we’ve signed but not ratified the first two, and we initiated the process but withdrew 25 July 2001 for the latter). Those are just 3 off the top of my head. I do agree with you that there needs to be a balance among multiple factors: maintaining consistency across US admininstrations in foreign policy *does* have value, maintaining integrity in deals and documents we have signed does have value, supporting allies does have value. All of those are subsumed to overall US strategic interests, which may shift and should, imo, be thought of in long term perspectives (strategy) rather than just short-term (tactics). /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nerdgirl 0 #30 March 4, 2009 QuoteSecrets from the enemy and secrets from allies are slightly different. Concur. And in many ways I'm responding more generally than to you specifically ... Do folks understand that there is a difference between classified information (CONFIDENTIAL/SECRET/TOP SECRET) and diplomatically sensitive and For Official Use Only (FOUO)? Maybe ya'all do and I'm being dense. It's not apparent to me tho' ... or I'm being pendantic? (If it were precision of terminology related to guns, it would be an issue.) /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nerdgirl 0 #31 March 4, 2009 Quote NNNNNNNNNNEEEEERRRRRRDDDDDDSSSS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Nerdgirl Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nerdgirl 0 #32 March 4, 2009 QuoteAnd your also sure that the Poland missle shield was not just a bargaining chip against Russia the whole time? Interesting hypothesis ... My speculation is that as long as Poland gets some part of the foreign aid promised, they would *prefer* more stable relations between the US and Russia, particularly as Russia has indicated that if the 10 actual interceptors are deployed to Poland, that they will point interceptors -- 'brand-spanking new' RS-24s with sophisticated multiple, independently targetable re-entry vehicles, which look just like ICBMs ... because they are ballistic missiles (which I'm confident you know) and that Russia claims can penetrate NMD -- at Poland. Have there been any comments from Poland to the Obama-Med? NATO? (I honestly don't know at this point.) One argument (there are many more than just 2) is that it's a brilliant move on President Obama's part: it weakens Russia's position. It's also not a new move. Back in November, then-President-elect Obama indicated he might not pursue the deployment of the 10 interceptors. I suspect that the Poles want the foreign aid, in the form of military cooperation and modernization ($$$$ & stuff) of Polish defense capabilities. That's their angle, imo. /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nerdgirl 0 #33 March 4, 2009 From the Pentagon Channel, comments from SecDef Gates on on-going (“talked with the Russians before”) discussions with Russia on missile defense, including the direct connection to Iran: “Obviously one approach would be if we [US & Russia] could persuade the Iranians not to go forward with their ballistic missile program, if we [the US & Russia] do that together. “Another alternative is incorporating them in a partnership that makes them [Russia] a full partner in missile defense.” It was also part of the discussions with the French Defense Minister, noted in press briefing btw SecDef Gates & MOD Morin: "I told the Russians, a year ago ... here's the cause of the concern, what can we do together to deal with the potential threat." (starts at 15:19) (Interesting questions on France’s involvement in ISAF, imo.) /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Capt.Slog 0 #34 March 4, 2009 Quote/index.jsp?fr_story=FRdamp343479&rf=rss]press briefing btw SecDef Gates & MOD Morin[/url]: "I told the Russians, a year ago ... here's the cause of the concern, what can we do together to deal with the potential threat." (starts at 15:19) (Interesting questions on France’s involvement in ISAF, imo.) /Marg A YEAR AGO! Well! Who was president then? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andrewwhyte 1 #35 March 4, 2009 This is the dumbest fucking thread I have seen in a while. Virtually ALL leader to leader conversations and correspondence are secret. The idea that the presidents of the US and Russia cannot correspond without a full NATO summit is moronic at best. When Obama was in Ottawa last month the visit started with a 40 minute discussion with the PM and no-one else in the room, IN SECRET DISCUSSIONS POSSIBLY ON SUBJECTS RANGING FROM EXPANDING FREE TRADE TO THE IRANIAN AN GASA CRISES (and on their children and the pressures of office according to Harper). Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DanG 1 #36 March 4, 2009 It's unlikely that I know anywhere near as much about this as you, but my basic theory is that we knew all along that Russia would never allow the installation of a missile shield in eastern Europe. In fact, from a strategic point of view, I think the destabilizing effect would more than cancel out the supposed security benefits. I believe the missile shield concept provides a couple diplomatic benefits: aid to Poland and the Czech Republic to solidify our alliance, a bargaining chip for use against Russia, and the appearance to our Western European friends that we are still serious about our NATO commitments, but without garrisoning thousands of troops on their soil (which has become rather unpopular). Notice that I didn't mention protection from Middle Eastern missiles. Perhaps if Russia had not been Putin-ified and started edging away from cooperation with the West the missile defense shield would not be the issue it is today. They did, and it is. The shield has more likelihood of being an effective deterent to Iranian missile development as a lever against Russia than it does as a missile defense shield, IMHO. And if you remember your recent history, the Polish installation agreement was finally signed after Russia invaded Georgia last summer. How anyone can argue that the shield was ever about anything other than Russia is beyond me. - Dan G Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nerdgirl 0 #37 March 6, 2009 Interesting – and purely speculative on my part – potential connection between this thread and one from early February on Closing Manas AB in Kyrgystan. The timing may be purely coincidental (if anything in dealing with the Russians is 'purely coincidental) but nicely illustrates, im-ever-ho, the importance of prioritizing strategic goals over short-term tactics. While the US continues to negotiate with the Kyrgyz government for renewed access to the air field, “In an interview with the British Broadcasting Corp. on March 4, President Kurmanbek Bakiyev indicated that the Kyrgyz government was open to ‘any new proposals from the US government aimed at stabilizing the situation in Afghanistan.’ To strike any new deal, however, Bakiyev said that the United States would have to show Kyrgyzstan more ‘respect.’ Bakiyev signed a bill to close the air base on February 20.” … the prospects don’t look good, however: “The Kyrgyz parliament voted overwhelmingly Friday to evict U.S. allies from a key military base, after ordering U.S. forces out last month. “Lawmakers voted to cancel an agreement that allows 11 allies to use the Manas air base, a key staging point for the U.S.-led coalition fighting Taliban insurgents in Afghanistan.” An alternate supply route has been opened: “First non-military rail containers for Afghanistan have crossed Russia” “ NATO members are looking for alternative supply routes for their troops fighting the Taliban as an alternative to using Pakistan, where Western military convoys are repeatedly attacked by Taliban militants. “… the first U.S. cargo shipment is 100 containers large, and was sent to Afghanistan by rail via the Port of Riga. The United States Embassy in Latvia informed that approximately 20 to 30 train cars per week will be sent to Afghanistan via Latvia, Russia, Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan. “The newspaper Biznes&Baltija reported previously that Russia agreed to be a transit country for the cargo from the United States after George Bush was recently replaced by Barack Obama as United States President. One of Russia's conditions, however, is that the cargo cannot be military related. The cargo will be made up of camouflage, food products and civil equipment. “As Biznes&Baltija reported, if the freight transit through these countries is successful, it could increase to 700 containers per week for Afghanistan.” It was also reported in Janes Defence “US military opens transit route between Russia and Afghanistan.” Probably reported elsewhere, the latter was my first reading. If the two (US reconsidering deployment of 10 interceptors missiles to Poland and opening up of supply line to Afghanistan) are connected, which again is purely speculative and somewhat unlikely as SecDef Gates has acknowledged discussions with the Russians over the last year, it’s an interesting grand strategic bargain. /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Nelyubin 0 #38 March 10, 2009 “… the first U.S. cargo shipment is 100 containers large, and was sent to Afghanistan by rail via the Port of Riga. The United States Embassy in Latvia informed that approximately 20 to 30 train cars per week will be sent to Afghanistan via Latvia, Russia, Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan. ... This transit route began well before the deployment of bases in Kyrgyzstan and Uzbekistan. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nerdgirl 0 #39 March 10, 2009 QuoteQuote“… the first U.S. cargo shipment is 100 containers large, and was sent to Afghanistan by rail via the Port of Riga. The United States Embassy in Latvia informed that approximately 20 to 30 train cars per week will be sent to Afghanistan via Latvia, Russia, Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan. ... This transit route began well before the deployment of bases in Kyrgyzstan and Uzbekistan. Do you mean the physical existence of the transit route? Or do you mean shipments of materials and supplies for the the US military and NATO forces along those routes? Or do you mean that was the supply route used by the Soviets to move troops and supplies into Afghanistan in the 1980s? Yes, the route has existed for years, as has the silk road, that doesn't make it automatically accessible to NATO supply routes (imagine the ludicrous nature of that idea 40 years ago). /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Nelyubin 0 #40 March 11, 2009 QuoteOr do you mean shipments of materials and supplies for the the US military and NATO forces along those routes? Yes. This route carried out deliveries for coalition forces. Later to forces of a coalition have allowed to place air bases in Kirghizia and Uzbekistan. QuoteYes, the route has existed for years, as has the silk road, that doesn't make it automatically accessible to NATO supply routes (imagine the ludicrous nature of that idea 40 years ago). Yes, really ridiculously. :) Especially if to consider, that during with 1941 on 1946 so it and was Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Skyrad 0 #41 March 11, 2009 There's only room for ONE 'Mr Brown' in this whitehouse! Gordon Brown is a disaster, I can't blame Obama from distancing himself from the has been. When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy. Lucius Annaeus Seneca Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
