Obama Vs Mcain and Russia

[diverboy70]

As we all know the tension between the west and Russia is growing.

As we have a presidential election on the way in the US, who of the candidates do you think could handle this crises in the best way, and why? Is it true that Mcain is even more warprone than Bush or that Obama is to inexperienced in foreign politics?

Personally I think this is a time to calm down the situation and for the diplomatic parties to sit down and talk, and not a time for showing of powers from both sides!

My personal opinions aside,who do you will do the best job concerning the relations to Russia?

[wxman]

The question is not so much who will be president, but whose policy will Congress back. In that case, Russia would fear more the Obama/Biden ticket. Obama may not have foreign policy experience, but Biden does. Biden is not much of a Russian fan, and the democratic controlled Congress would follow his lead. Democrats have never been ones to reach out to Russia. They are the ones who really escalated the cold war under Kennedy and Johnson. Nixon a Republican actually reached out to both China and Russia by creating better dialogue. Carter a Democrat came in and infuriated the Soviets by not going to the Olympics. Reagan actually reached out again to the Soviets by opening up more talks with Gorbachev. In came Clinton a Democrat, who got himself involved in propping up Yeltsin and getting himself involved in the Balkans and the mess that followed, which did not sit well with Russia.  Bush, early in his administration worked well with Putin. So my opinion is that if Obama is elected, and Congress remains in control of the Democrats, the cold war will deepen. Sure Obama will try and reach out early, but Biden and the other cold war Democrat relics will flex their muscles.   

[BillyB]

Democrats have never been ones to reach out to Russia.

The hardcore Seattle Democrats have a statue of Lenin in their neighborhood. They went out and bought it from the FSU.

As we have a presidential election on the way in the US, who of the candidates do you think could handle this crises in the best way, and why? Is it true that McCain is even more warprone than Bush or that Obama is to inexperienced in foreign politics?

McCain is more experienced and I think he's better for the job. It doesn't make a difference to me if McCain is more warprone than Bush as long as what he does is necessary. War is sometimes necessary. I'm surprised the Democrats chose someone so young and inexperienced. I guess a guy having Charisma is bigger for the Dems over a guy with foreign policy experience otherwise Biden would be a serious candidate to begin with.


Before every Presidential election gas prices go down. Enjoy. I guess the parties have a silent agreement with oil companies to not make oil a topic during the elections.

[Blues Fairy]

With his constant criticism of America and its ways, Obama is surely the best friend of the lovely tandem sitting in Moscow.  However, I can very clearly imagine a situation when Russia, for whatever reason, walks into a sovereign country and, though repeatedly told to leave, persists in staying despite all reasonable arguments and mutually signed cease-fire agreements.  The West gives a warning that, say, if Russian troops don't pull out in 10 days, the other side and its allies will start shooting.  Plain and simple.

Do I imagine Obama giving such a warning?  Hell no. 

[Faux Pas]

It's all academic. Obama would be willing to let the Kremlin make its moves and go unchecked whereas McCain would not. I think the idea McCain is war prone is a misconception. More aggressive moves by Russia would send a McCain into a defensive posture for both the US and it's allies. Most likely escalating the tensions. Such moves for an Obama and he morph into a Jimmy Carter by waging  the finger to Russia  and pointing out to the world what a bad country it is but essentially doing nothing while Russia continued as she pleased. Which one would you vote for if you could?

Biden is completely irrelevant unless Obama should happen to die in office. He is only on the ticket to consolidate the democratic party and in all likelihood won't even have Obama's ear to bend. Obama's experience in any foreign relations or policy is (as Dean Wormer said in Animal House) Zero point Zero. 4 years ago he was a councilman in the city of Chicago. He's not a politician he's a celebrity.

[ScottinCrimea]

Russia doesn't resond to diplomacy, it responds to strength.  Which of the candidates would be perceived by them as strong in foreign affairs?

[steviej]

As we all know the tension between the west and Russia is growing.

As we have a presidential election on the way in the US, who of the candidates do you think could handle this crises in the best way, and why? Is it true that Mcain is even more warprone than Bush or that Obama is to inexperienced in foreign politics?

Personally I think this is a time to calm down the situation and for the diplomatic parties to sit down and talk, and not a time for showing of powers from both sides!

My personal opinions aside,who do you will do the best job concerning the relations to Russia?

The current tension between the US and Russia is a trumped-up attempt by the Republican administration to create a situation or feeling of international security risk or crisis. It's an old trick called the "October surprise" where the controlling party creates a situation just before the election that will help their cause. The Republicans feel that if they scare the Americans and creat a "new cold war" scenario, then McCain's chances are better. Sadly, they are probably right.

The last 8 years of the Bush administration, backed by the neo-cons, global free traders and military industrial complex, will go down as the worst administration in US history. By any measure of performance of government "of the people, by the people and for the people", meaning the well being of the hard working citizens of USA, this administration is a catastrophic failure.

The so-called tension between US and Russia is 95% due to specific aggressive and provocative policies of US toward Russia. Russia is responding in a sane way w.r.t. her national interests. The fact the the US Secretary of State would declare that Poland will be "defended" by US as though "It is our own territory" is the most wildly insane policy statement of a secretary of state, perhaps ever.

McCain's presidency, should he win, is of necessity based on a continuation of these policies and creating and maintaining an ongoing sense of international crisis. If Obama wins, he should, in my opinion, make an abrupt about face with the neo-con foreign policies of the past 8 years that have bankrupted our government, initiated unnecessary wars, alienated our European allies, and created an absurd confrontation with Russia.

We'll see. The fact that McCain is even running close in the polls shows you how well conditioned Americans are to the idea that we should be militarily on the verge of, and engaged in, armed conflict around the globe. I don't recall hearing a peep out of the voting public regarding the threats over Poland that our government is making.

[diverboy70]

The so-called tension between US and Russia is 95% due to specific aggressive and provocative policies of US toward Russia. Russia is responding in a sane way w.r.t. her national interests. The fact the the US Secretary of State would declare that Poland will be "defended" by US as though "It is our own territory" is the most wildly insane policy statement of a secretary of state, perhaps ever.

Stevie.

You know I'm totally with you in this 

I just feel that the situation is starting to get out of hand. The "kids in the sandbox" are throwing bigger and bigger things at eachother and soon the maybe will throw a misile 
How do we avoid that?

[Shadow]

Stevie.

You know I'm totally with you in this 

I just feel that the situation is starting to get out of hand. The "kids in the sandbox" are throwing bigger and bigger things at eachother and soon the maybe will throw a misile 
How do we avoid that?

By sending them to their room without supper. 

[diverboy70]

Shadow,

Yes supper, but no play with the fire trucks 

[kievstar]

Republicans are always stronger on foregin policy than Democrats.  Democrats are stronger on promoting socialism.  However, longterm Democrats will be bad for Russia as they will spend more on alternative sources of fuel in USA.  They will pull costs out of managing the world economy and put back into the USA (socialist projects, healthcare, cut military spending) .  So the USA longterm will need less oil driving prices down and eventually bankrupting Russia again unless Russia learns to make something worthwhile.  Also, Russia will start fighting with more countries as they will not have to worry about USA policing the World.   Russia will take this on in the middleast and eastern Europe. China's military is too powerful and Russia knows it so do not see them go east.  Plus China is USA best friend (it is not England). 

Whoever was going to be president in 1992 would look like a genius.  USA economy was going to explode (Clinton in right place right time).  Same thing in 2009 - whoever president will look great.  USA economy goes up and down and president does not have much to do with it. 

If you want peace, McCain is best option.  But MCain is not really the best option for USA.  I am 100% Republican because I make a lot of money but have already figured out the tax loopholes that will not effect me under Obama's tax the people over $250,000 scheme. 

[steviej]

If you want peace, McCain is best option.  But MCain is not really the best option for USA.  I am 100% Republican because I make a lot of money but have already figured out the tax loopholes that will not effect me under Obama's tax the people over $250,000 scheme. 

Not sure where you get that one. Maybe it depends on peace for who where? Certainly not for Americans. McCain is already "gettin' in the face" of every potential trip-wire situation around the world he can. His language toward Russia, Iran, and even regarding Polish missile site, is aggressive, implying threats with force. Sounds just like Bush/Cheney and the neo-cons to me (who's goal is to make any  potential enemy of Israel and enemy of the USA (Joe Lieberman anyone?). His whole campaign right now seems to be based on being the "war" candidate.

Plus China is USA best friend (it is not England). 

To call China our best "friend" shows what a pathetic disaster the past 20 years for foreign policy has been (I would even go back to '72). China is the largest most repressive totalitarian regime in the world. They have partnered with the "global capitalists" (for lack of a better word) to benefit from the largest transfer of wealth in history from one nation to another (US -> China). Huge money for the top-tier and movers of global capital. Disaster for US middle class, and still eroding. Our children are in debt to the communist Chinese to the tune of trillions of dollars. Their hard work, sweating each workweek (now working more hours per week than any other advanced country) will go to paying off the debts and interest on our federal deficits and trade deficits (They are additive as you can see when you consider that China uses their greenbacks from trade deficit to buy US governmen securities, converting it directly to debt for our children.) We've turned our children into indentured servants to the Chinese.

About England, they are a 3rd rate little island non-power dependency of the US. Simply a nonfactor except sentimentally maybe. Churchill did a good job destroying the British empire, which was the mightiest empire in the world in 1913, and was gone by 1945.

[Blues Fairy]

McCain is already "gettin' in the face" of every potential trip-wire situation around the world he can. His language toward Russia, Iran, and even regarding Polish missile site, is aggressive, implying threats with force.

And what kind of language would you use toward Iran, for example?  Pleasant and obliging?  Or toward Russia, who's shipping arms to Ahmadinejad and Hugo Chavez?

[BC]

And what kind of language would you use toward Iran, for example?  Pleasant and obliging?  Or toward Russia, who's shipping arms to Ahmadinejad and Hugo Chavez?

Respectful.

[Blues Fairy]

Respectful.

"Esteemed Mr. Ahmadinejad, would you kindly stop your nuclear program?" 

[BC]

"Esteemed Mr. Ahmadinejad, would you kindly stop your nuclear program?" 

How about:

Esteemed Mr. Ahmadinejad,  would you like to see the entire middle east declared a nuclear weapon free zone?

That would raise his eyebrows.

[steviej]

And what kind of language would you use toward Iran, for example?  Pleasant and obliging?  Or toward Russia, who's shipping arms to Ahmadinejad and Hugo Chavez?

Here comes the boogey man of Israel. Israel has no value whatsover as an "ally" of the US. Rather, we have let ourselves be seduced into being some kind of "democratic jihadists" on their behalf, and really, our whole view of foreign policy is now subject to that. If we want an ally, Iran is a more natural choice. They have oil. They can help secure the Persian gulf. Israel is useless and simply creates untold complications and risks without any benefit whatsover for the citizens of US. If we wake up tomorrow and find out that Iran and Syria have attacked Israel (which is just a continuation of a 5000 yr old conflict) it will make no difference whatsoever to life in US. Should someone "help" Israel? Why not Russia? China? Germany? Turkey? Israel is nothng but a boatanchor to US.

[I should add, it is big business for the military industrial complex guys .. billions per year. How many businesses would like to be worth that much? War and the threat of war is business for these guys, and marketing war is their "ad campaign". ... "This will not stand .." etc. We know all their ad slogans as well as we know McDonald's ads.]

[Gator]

Israel has no value whatsover as an "ally" of the US. Rather, we have let ourselves be seduced into being some kind of "democratic jihadists" on their behalf, and really, our whole view of foreign policy is now subject to that.

Agree with you somewhat, yet Democrats have done more to prop up Israel than the Republicans.

If we want an ally, Iran is a more natural choice.

Surely you jest.  If not, get real.  I lived there for two years.  We can not depend upon these people.  Their culture admires the most clever liars, even knowing that they are dishonest.

[Gator]

Analyze Obama’s rhetoric and limited track record and you will find a flaming liberal.  His programs are the same old Democratic liberalism of decades ago in different clothing, e. g. big government, social engineering with taxes, looking inward, etc.  How will taxing oil producers drive down the price of oil? 

Hats off to Obama for his campaign skills, knocking off the front running  Hillary.  However, we really do not know what type of leader Obama can be, so a vote for him is a “leap of faith and fingers-crossed” vote as well as an “anti-Bush” vote.  Neither is a good reason to put him in office.

Obama reminds me of the type of person who blows sunshine up people’s asses.  We have all worked with such people and we know how they never rise to the top, for good reason.  There is no substance.  Obama would make a great press secretary.

McCain is McCain.  I wish my man Romney was the candidate, yet the too conservative Republicans spoiled that opportunity.  So I choose from McCain or Obama.  I am very impressed with McCain leadership for the surge in Iraq.  The concept was very unpopular, and personally I would have been with Obama and voted no, and maybe a little supportive of Biden's plan to partition Iraq.  Yet, McCain realized it was the only way to get us out of the mess we created and went against the flow.  That is a prime example of presidential material.

With regard to Russia, I think Obama will do little to discourage Russia from rearming.   Russians do not like being weak and will sharpen and rattle sabers.  McCain is not a war monger but will face any challenge.  Obama instead will call on the world community, a good idea to start but “more” will be needed.  I don’t think he has “more” in him other than to whisper to the Chinese to have a go at the Ruskies using its army of millions of horny men.

The world will not get simpler and kinder and we need someone at the helm who knows what to do.

[steviej]

Surely you jest.  If not, get real.  I lived there for two years.  We can not depend upon these people.  Their culture admires the most clever liars, even knowing that they are dishonest.

Re: Iran- Not much different than our Wahabbi Saudi friends. They lie through their teeth about everything. How about our Pakistani buddies? IMO, an "ally" has to be based on the realpolitick. We need oil and security in the Persian Gulf to get it. Shouldn't make an enemy out of Iran, IMO.

[BC]

Surely you jest.  If not, get real.  I lived there for two years.  We can not depend upon these people.  Their culture admires the most clever liars, even knowing that they are dishonest.

hmm.. Now where have I heard something similar before.... -ahh yes.. RWD Scam section..

I don't doubt you for one minute Gator, but during your two years there did you not learn this facet of their complex culture and adjust your expectations/actions accordingly?

I could say something similar about places in southern Italy, but once you get the 'knack' of things it's quite bearable.

Is it not plausible to think that in their own 'sphere' such 'norms' can only be dealt with properly with a similar mindset and full understanding of the rules of the game being played? 

I think the vast majority, including Presidents west of Istanbul simply do not possess the abilities needed to successfully navigate those dunes. I think RU, aka Putin is much better equipped to handle it.  Sadly his offer of cooperation regarding Iran were hastily declined, deferring to 'We can handle it alone'.  Huge mistake - Azerbaijan was a great opportunity.

Does GW play chess? backgammon? I sorely hope the next President does instead of relying on some computer generated 'scenario' to cook his goose.

[Blues Fairy]

Re: Iran- Not much different than our Wahabbi Saudi friends. They lie through their teeth about everything. How about our Pakistani buddies? IMO, an "ally" has to be based on the realpolitick. We need oil and security in the Persian Gulf to get it. Shouldn't make an enemy out of Iran, IMO.

And having an "ally" lying through his teeth will surely add a great deal to the security.

Pakistan is nuclear; the Saudis are themselves under the siege of Al-Qaeda.   

[BC]

Gator,

Considering that timing of the 'Surge' roughly coincided with broader acceptance of 'Awakening groups', which do you think had more effect..

20,000 additional US troops
or
over 100,000 US paid mercenaries..

Well, we will find out with certainty some time in the near future when Iraq disbands the Awakening groups.

[BC]

With regard to Russia, I think Obama will do little to discourage Russia from rearming.   Russians do not like being weak and will sharpen and rattle sabers.  McCain is not a war monger but will face any challenge.  Obama instead will call on the world community, a good idea to start but “more” will be needed.  I don’t think he has “more” in him other than to whisper to the Chinese to have a go at the Ruskies using its army of millions of horny men.

The world will not get simpler and kinder and we need someone at the helm who knows what to do.

Ok Gator,

http://www.globalpolicy.org/empire/challenges/competitors/2008/0812russia.htm

What realistically can Obama or McCain do to discourage RU from rearming?

I say absolutely nothing.

[Andrew James]

The current tension between the US and Russia is a trumped-up attempt by the Republican administration to create a situation or feeling of international security risk or crisis. It's an old trick called the "October surprise" where the controlling party creates a situation just before the election that will help their cause. The Republicans feel that if they scare the Americans and creat a "new cold war" scenario, then McCain's chances are better. Sadly, they are probably right.

Straight out of the neo-con playbook isn't it (though certainly not a tactic they invented.) Interesting how talk of attacking Iran seems to have quieted over recent weeks too, with the Conservatives perhaps realizing that too many people have figured out how economically catastrophic such a strike would be. So what do they do: look at their Pax-Americana atlas and start shifting around some drawing-pins.