Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
Whajathink of the Presidents G7 speech today?
Topic Started: Mar 27 2014, 03:46 AM (755 Views)
Banandangees
Member Avatar
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
[ * ]

I liked the main emphasis of his speech. The question is, did the EU?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Banandangees
Member Avatar
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
[ * ]
question2 What? Nobody listen to the president's G7 speech today.... it was on CNN, MSNBC, FOX?? A good 30 minute speech. It didn't look like anyone in the audience was falling asleep. He did have the teleprompters however. I have to say that he did put much of the emphasis on to what I hoped he would.... IMO. I would guess you would know what that would be. It's the first time in a long time that I'd say that I would agree with much of what he said. Although, from what he said, I gather the G7 hasn't come up with a unified course of action.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
tomdrobin
Member Avatar
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
[ * ]
I listened to a report on it, which gave some of the keynotes. His usual good job, and points well made. Walking the fine line between demonstrating our opposition to Putin's actions, yet not antagonizing. One of our astronauts went into space on a Russian rocket today.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Jack of 32
No Avatar
Jr. Member
[ * ]
I could care less what he has to say via teleprompter because darn near everything he has to say is a Lie...
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Banandangees
Member Avatar
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
[ * ]
What I think he said well, and what I'd hoped he'd say to the G7 audience while directing emphasis toward NATO and in particular the EU nations, was that Russia's aggression, it's show of military force to gain territory, must be met by all NATO members, that they "must contribute their fair share of the expense and sacrifice" brought on by sanctions put on Russia and Russia's return sanctions. In particular, he emphasized that the US had no "urgency" as Russia's aggression did not threaten it's borders or even come near it's borders, but that the EU had the most to lose by continued Russian aggression as it's eastern EU members border Russia. While he reassured that the US would allow no encroachment on any NATO nation (the "we have your back assurance") he gave caution to the EU and other NATO nations that now is not the time to be passive and hold back on increased sanctions because of what the EU nations gain, and stand to lose, from Russia's return sanctions in the form of restricted "energy," that they (the EU) should not look to the US to bear an unfair share of the expense burden (which it usually does).

I think that he delivered that message in a tactful way. The question is, does the EU nations have the gonads to follow through with "their fair share of the burden in light that Russia will put in place sanctions of it's own that may bite the EU nations a bit? And, do the NATO nations have confidence that the US will "have their backs" when and if the going gets more testy?

The EU has the most to lose in this situation. The US should not always be the one to bear the major costs. IMO Isn't that why the NATO nation was founded.

And, if you can believe it, he defended the US involvement in Iraq as a response to Putin's comments that the US did the same there that Russia is doing with Crimea and possibly eastern Ukraine.... to begin with. Obama said that the difference is that the US's action in Iraq was not to gain geography or take their resources (without paying...oil) or rule their government; that the action was similar to that of the "humanitarian effort of Libya.... to remove a tyrant.

I saw the speech as an announcement that all NATO nations have a responsibility and share of the burden to protect NATO nations from this sort of force.
Edited by Banandangees, Mar 27 2014, 08:29 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Deleted User
Deleted User

Never heard it but I am on the road in Mexico. I don't expect jack 32 to like it, he is one of these people who trash Obama no matter what he does or does not do, so his opinion does not count for much. I guess I have to look up the text of it to judge it. Not sure exactly what he can do short of a military confrontation, and with both sides still armed to the teeth with nukes, that is off the table. IMO, they should rush NATO membership for Ukraine to discourage any more grabs, but with Europe so dependant on Russian energy now, the situation is delicate.

Regardless, the US needs to stop trying to play world policeman. That is what the UN and NATO are for.
Quote Post Goto Top
 
Pat
Member Avatar
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
[ * ]
I liked the speech too for the same reasons Ban. My guess is that there will be no united European front nor across the board enforcement of any sanctions. France is probably already meeting in secret with Russia to cut a trade deal.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Neutral
Member Avatar
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
[ * ]
What Obi says means squat.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Deleted User
Deleted User

If Putin was smart, he would invite another vote on Crimea with international monitors. This time with options, join Russia, stay with Ukraine (with guarantees Russia controls its naval base Ala Guantanamo) or independence. Set a 80% threshold. If it also went Russias way, as it surely would, it would give all parties a way out and save some face. Pretty hard to argue with self determination of the population. Allow Ukrainian nationals in Crimea to move to eastern Ukraine which also has a large population of Russians, and those Russians to move to Crimea after. Property swap. Much as happened with India and Pakistan in 1948.
Quote Post Goto Top
 
Deleted User
Deleted User

Neutral
Mar 27 2014, 10:58 PM
What Obi says means squat.
A real intelligent analysis like Jack. NOT? Why do you waste your time posting if you have nothing substantial to contribute? We already know you base your opinions on nothing more than irrational hate for Obama, so why waste your time and ours? At least Ban has plenty to contribute other than meaningless patter.
Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Fire And Ice General Discussion · Next Topic »
Add Reply

Website Traffic Analysis