PDA

View Full Version : Obama talks Iran, missile shields, in 'resetting' relations with Russia



Grendel
03-04-2009, 08:21 PM
Obama cites need to 'reset' relations with Moscow
By Steven R. Hurst, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON – President Barack Obama said Tuesday he has told Russia that reducing Iran's pursuit of a nuclear weapon would in turn lessen the need for a U.S.-planned missile defense system in Eastern Europe that Moscow has opposed. But Obama said he sought no "quid pro quo" with Moscow.

The new president also said it is time for the U.S. to "reset or reboot" its relationship with Russia, a nod to the increasingly tense relations of recent years.

Answering questions at a picture-taking moment in his meeting with visiting British Prime Minister Gordon Brown, Obama was asked about a letter he sent to Russian President Dmitry Medvedev regarding a series of mutual security concerns, including U.S. plans for deploying U.S. missile defenses in Poland and the Czech Republic.

"What I said in the letter is the same thing I've said publicly, which is that the missile defense that we have talked about deploying is directed towards not Russia, but Iran," Obama said. "That has always been the concern — that you have potentially a missile from Iran that threatened either the United States or Europe."

Obama disputed a published report that said he characterized his letter as "quid pro quo" with Russia, which has opposed the missile defense system. He said it was simply "a statement of fact."

He said lessening Iran's commitment to nuclear weapons "reduces the pressure for, or the need for, a missile defense system." But that, he said, does not diminish his own commitment to ensure that Poland, the Czech Republic or other NATO members enjoy full U.S. support with respect to their security.

More broadly, Obama said he has had a good exchange with Russia's leadership.

"I've said that we need to reset or reboot the relationship there," Obama said. "Russia needs to understand our unflagging commitment to the independence and security of countries like a Poland or a Czech Republic. On the other hand, we have areas of common concern."

The president said he wants a constructive U.S.-Russia relationship "based on common respect and mutual interests."

Medvedev said he had talked with Obama over the phone and exchanged letters with him, but added that there was "no talk about some kind of trade-off, or quid pro quo."

"No, issues haven't been put that way, it would be unproductive," he said at a news conference Tuesday, which followed talks in Madrid with Spanish Prime Minister Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero.

Medvedev reaffirmed a strong opposition to the previous U.S. administration's plan to deploy a battery of missile interceptors in Poland and a related radar in the Czech Republic, saying the move would hurt security in Europe.

Medvedev said that Russia was encouraged by Obama's administration's readiness to discuss Moscow's complaints.

"Our American partners are ready to discuss this problem, and that's already positive," he said at a news conference. "Several months ago we were hearing different signals: The decision has been made, there is nothing to discuss, we will do what we have decided to do."

"Now I hope the situation is different," Medvedev added. "But no one is linking these issues to some kind of trade-offs, particularly on the Iranian issue. We are already working in close contact with our U.S. counterparts on the Iranian nuclear issue."

Obama and Medvedev are expected to meet at the G-20 economic summit of advanced and developing nations in London next month, according to senior administration officials.

U.S. officials emphasized that "we will continue to consult with the Czechs and Poles as we move forward with decisions on missile defense." That message was an obvious attempt to ease fears among those two U.S. allies — former Soviet satellite states — who are deeply invested in the missile defense system as an assurance of American backing against a resurgent Russia.

The administration has previously hinted that the policy on the missile defense shield that former President George W. Bush fiercely advocated was open to reassessment.

Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, speaking at a news conference in Jerusalem while on a Mideast tour, said that "we are at the beginning of the engagement with Russia on behalf of this new government."

"We have a very broad agenda also, what we have said specifically in regard to missile defense in Europe is that it has always been intended to deter any missiles that might come from Iran," she said.

A key U.S. lawmaker said Tuesday that Obama should keep open the possibility of engaging Iran directly, as Obama has said he would do. Sen. Richard Lugar, the top Republican on the Foreign Relations Committee, said the administration should consider the possibility of establishing a U.S. visa office or similar diplomatic presence in Iran.

"Such an outpost would facilitate more exchange and outreach with the Iranian people," said Lugar, of Indiana. Strikes me as a very savvy play on the part of the President.

For eight years, we've said that this "missile shield" plan was related to Iran, not Russia, despite the clear thumb-in-the-eye it was itnerpreted as by the latter and the effect it has on our relations with Moscow. It seems to me a united front against Iran--to say nothing of an improved working relationship with Russia--is worth far more than a rather questionable bit of defense technology.

lunatic
03-05-2009, 04:14 PM
What a bullcrap.

Putin used anti-Western, anti-American (with a huge portion of centuries old, Russian style Jew-hatred) sentiments to fire up Russian nationalism/nostalgic patriotism about Soviet era world wide domination in making the planet less stable and bloodier.
You always need an enemy to prove your toughness. Only Jews aren't enough. Plus they got oil $$$$ to afford it for some time. Hatred towards West never stops over there, and jealousy is the reason. And they do hate a lot.
Now, do you think Putin would not use an opportunity to blame U.S. and its allies to plan something evil against Russia?
Why exactly do we have to worry about a relationship with Russia? Let them work on it. They need it more than us, for sanity and survival.

The only thing Marxist has to pay attention to is when KGBist is telling him not to build socialism. I am sure he will ignore that rarest breath of common sense coming out of the Putin's mouth. Like all Marxists before him.

Impeach Obama...

P.S. Speaking of Iran, didn't Russia already say "F*ck off?"

Grendel
03-05-2009, 05:51 PM
"Jew hatred" has precious little to do with this issue or with current relations between Washington and Moscow. While "impeach Obama" might be a clever bumper sticker to some, it's a rather laughable suggestion 6 weeks into an administration.

lunatic
03-06-2009, 07:12 PM
"Jew hatred" has precious little to do with this issue or with current relations between Washington and Moscow. While "impeach Obama" might be a clever bumper sticker to some, it's a rather laughable suggestion 6 weeks into an administration.

I was making a point that it seems nothing changed since the Cold War in Russia: America, West, and Jews are still enemies of the mystique Russian soul. Defense system was used as another excuse to keep anti-Americanism on the highest level possible to cover their own shortcomings. With oil $$$ going south and life of ordinary folks getting harder you really think Kremlin will abandon the game of "blame everything on America" and start helping us by risking their great relationship with wonderful Iran (put my conspiracy theory about Russia supporting an Iran's promise to eliminate Israel right here. It's always about the Jewish folks.:yes:). I smell they are not interested in such a gentlemen's agreement.

I wish I would be paranoid about Russia. Unfortunately, I am not. And since American mass media pretty much ignores the Putin's hatred machine I have to use my knowledge of the Russian language to learn it from their TV, newspapers and Internet. Mostly what folks are writing on Forums, including movie fans forums. The big hit on one of them was a movie made by Joseph Goebbels' propaganda - Jud Süß. The least offensive commentary: Germans knew how to treat those bastards. (Hungarian fascists distribute this pile of shit now through their website illegally.) Back to 1930s?

6 weeks are enough. I really don't want to live under Marxists again. Especially those who uses "Capital" and the race card.

Searcher
03-09-2009, 11:29 PM
While "impeach Obama" might be a clever bumper sticker to some, it's a rather laughable suggestion 6 weeks into an administration.

It'll be just as laughable 6 weeks into his second term.



6 weeks are enough. I really don't want to live under Marxists again.

Pack your bags.

Grendel
03-10-2009, 12:12 AM
6 weeks are enough. I really don't want to live under Marxists again. Especially those who uses "Capital" and the race card.If that's the comparison you're drawing here in the U.S., then you clearly know nowhere near as much about Marxism as you profess to.

lunatic
03-10-2009, 03:50 PM
If that's the comparison you're drawing here in the U.S., then you clearly know nowhere near as much about Marxism as you profess to.

Everything has a BEGINNING.

Don't forget: Lenin was a Marxist but many leftists blame him for abandoning classical Marxism (or going too far) and creating a totalitarian state (before his "appeasement" with New Economic Policy.) But had he stopped being a Marxist?

Who said Obama will be "doing" Karl and Saul Alinsky page by page? Different times - different tactics. The concept, however, is the same.

One thing for sure: to practice Marxism/Leninism/National Socialism/Maoism/"Alinskism"/other -isms as a political system in the country like USA - it must take enormous amount of efforts, money and mass idiocy. Unfortunately, as history proved, it's doable. The good news: it's stoppable too.

Question to you: What did he do in the first 6 weeks to prove to you that he's not what many predicted him to be and to do? Or you agree with his ideas so much that you consider my words offensive to you?

lunatic
03-10-2009, 03:52 PM
Pack your bags.

You are kidding. Why bags? I have a few bullets to stay.

Grendel
03-10-2009, 06:16 PM
Question to you: What did he do in the first 6 weeks to prove to you that he's not what many predicted him to be and to do? Or you agree with his ideas so much that you consider my words offensive to youFirst off, "grossly inaccurate" does not equate to "offensive."

Your retreat to "everything has a beginning" demonstrates the weakness of your talk radio-like position that now equates any increased government involvement or expiration of tax cuts to "socialism," "marxism" or whatever the boogeyman word of the day is. Your mind is clearly made up and any facts will be made to affirm what you already believe. Despite that, you want proof of a negative of a political/economic structure that simply does not exist in either practice or platform of this presidency. A case in point would be the fact that this "socialist's" proposed top tax-rate is, in fact lower (http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2009_03/017201.php) than that under those crazed leftists Reagan, Nixon, Eisenhower, etc.


You are kidding. Why bags? I have a few bullets to stay.Let's not go all 82nd Chairborne, shall we?

lunatic
03-10-2009, 07:22 PM
First off, "grossly inaccurate" does not equate to "offensive."

Your retreat to "everything has a beginning" demonstrates the weakness of your talk radio-like position that now equates any increased government involvement or expiration of tax cuts to "socialism," "marxism" or whatever the boogeyman word of the day is. Your mind is clearly made up and any facts will be made to affirm what you already believe. Despite that, you want proof of a negative of a political/economic structure that simply does not exist in either practice or platform of this presidency. A case in point would be the fact that this "socialist's" proposed top tax-rate is, in fact lower (http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2009_03/017201.php) than that under those crazed leftists Reagan, Nixon, Eisenhower, etc.

Let's not go all 82nd Chairborne, shall we?

I don't remember using the word tax.

If you think that this guy (with what he does, says and plans) is not a revolutionary(you know the type, the blood producer) you are not realistic. If you do and kind of like that fact, we never find a common ground. I just don't want you and Obama to drag me to 6 feet under or a mental institution - I can manage myself...

Grendel
03-10-2009, 07:35 PM
Obama's positions have shown him to be anything but "revolutionary."

Luris Blear
03-10-2009, 07:44 PM
I am not liking what I see with him. Or with our entire federal government at this time. All of them are enjoying too much opportunity to take more control of our personal lives.

Barack is calling for high taxes on people who aren't screw-ups so that the screw-ups can have it better. I don't know how he even keeps a straight face playing his "the rich" card with all the corporate welfare, except to express concern that he's buying the government's way into more power with money they do not have.

On to the subject at hand:
Medvedev said he had talked with Obama over the phone and exchanged letters with him, but added that there was "no talk about some kind of trade-off, or quid pro quo."

"No, issues haven't been put that way, it would be unproductive," he said at a news conference Tuesday,Well, the Russian just called our President a liar. We can have this one of two ways:

Medvedev is telling the truth. If this is the case then our President is blowing smoke up our ass in regards to touchy international affairs.

Medvedev is lying. If this is the case then the Russians are playing idiot power games and our President is suggesting that we try to play nice with them anyway.

This just isn't getting off to a good start either way.

Grendel
03-10-2009, 11:55 PM
Barack is calling for high taxes on people who aren't screw-ups so that the screw-ups can have it better.Again, these "high taxes" are simply back where they were a few years ago, and still well under many previous administrations.

As was succinctly put by John Cole in the source cited above:

"The 2010 proposed rate of 39.60% = socialism.
The 2002-2008 rates of 35.00% = capitalist nirvana.
The 39.6% rate of the 1990’s = socialism.
Everything else = down the memory hole."

On to the subject at hand:

"Medvedev said he had talked with Obama over the phone and exchanged letters with him, but added that there was "no talk about some kind of trade-off, or quid pro quo."

"No, issues haven't been put that way, it would be unproductive," he said at a news conference Tuesday,"

Well, the Russian just called our President a liar.How? They're both saying the same thing:
Obama disputed a published report that said he characterized his letter as "quid pro quo" with Russia, which has opposed the missile defense system. He said it was simply "a statement of fact."

Luris Blear
03-11-2009, 07:24 PM
Again, these "high taxes" are simply back where they were a few years ago, and still well under many previous administrations.Bush & Clinton both sent our troops to war. Does that make you feel that the war in Iraq was any more moral?

I don't mean to berate Obama for the sake of riding it with the tax comment. I just can't see this two-pronged approach to fiscal policy as anything except rewarding failure, the very worst kinds of greed, and sheer idiocy.

I'm not saying that Bush's policies were a capitalist nirvana, either. Bush also signed bailouts, and I didn't think any higher or lower than of that either.

This is about more than being "either for us or against us" with the Democrats. :nono:
Obama disputed a published report that said he characterized his letter as "quid pro quo" with RussiaThat, I missed. Thank you for correcting me.

Grendel
03-11-2009, 07:52 PM
Bush & Clinton both sent our troops to war. Does that make you feel that the war in Iraq was any more moral?

I don't mean to berate Obama for the sake of riding it with the tax comment. I just can't see this two-pronged approach to fiscal policy as anything except rewarding failure, the very worst kinds of greed, and sheer idiocy.

I'm not saying that Bush's policies were a capitalist nirvana, either. Bush also signed bailouts, and I didn't think any higher or lower than of that either.The current financial "plan" is fairly underwhelming to me, as well. On the narrower issue of taxation, the fact that we even went to war in one breath while fighting for permanent tax cuts in the next made little sense.

Given the off-the-budget expenditures in that area, it seems to me allowing those cuts to sunset was the prudent choice. Coupled with the middle class cuts being envisioned, however, it's clear we're not getting ahead in the game. As to its value to economic recovery, we'll see...

levil666
03-11-2009, 08:01 PM
There have been many a valid point made. It just bothers me that eight years and the Bush admin went virtually unchecked, and now 6 weeks into office, President Obama has faced a never ending battle of uphill challenges. :shrugs: I guess that change doesn't come cheap.

Once again, Grendel, a great post.