Page 5 of 9 FirstFirst ... 34567 ... LastLast
Results 41 to 50 of 90

Thread: Fidel Castro: Obama 'Misinterpreted' Raul's Words

  1. #41
    Enemy Combatant
    Kandahar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Washington, DC
    Last Seen
    10-15-13 @ 08:47 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    20,688

    Re: Fidel Castro: Obama 'Misinterpreted' Raul's Words

    Quote Originally Posted by Triad View Post

    Tell me, do you think it was a bad idea for FDR to meet with Stalin? For Nixon to meet with Mao? For Reagan to meet with Gorbachev? For Bush to meet with King Abdullah al-Saud?
    Are you coming to bed?
    I can't. This is important.
    What?
    Someone is WRONG on the internet! -XKCD

  2. #42
    Equal Opportunity Hater
    obvious Child's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    0.0, -2.3 on the Political Compass
    Last Seen
    12-09-14 @ 11:36 PM
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    19,883

    Re: Fidel Castro: Obama 'Misinterpreted' Raul's Words

    Quote Originally Posted by Lerxst View Post
    That's just plain dumb. Our power is in our ability to project our economic and military will. We don't need to intimidate other world leaders during meetings, stare them down, or outright refuse to speak with them in order maintain our position as a world power. We have "actual power" and nothing Obama is doing when attempting to warm relations with theses countries is eroding that.

    Just because he's not following in the Bush's or Reagan's footsteps is not an indicator that he is wrong in what he is doing. This the mid-60's anymore. Getting Cuba to open to the U.S. to any degree is a good thing because it provides opportunity for our influence to spread there. Obama is doing the right thing in pursuing better relations with these nations.

    Military action isn't always the answer.
    Agreed. In the past 8 years, the use of Soft Power by the US has dramatically declined. I've never really understood the almost fan boy level of obsession with hard power. It's as if some people think that blowing up everything and shooting everything that moves will solve our problems. China has effectively leveraged soft power to get what it wants without the massive costs in funding wars, invasions, occupations and nation building. Throw some FDI there, some military aid there, some diplomatic butt kissing here and bam, you get what you want without having to destroy the country who you're trying to get it from. The whole point of a big stick is never to use and rarely have to actively threaten to use it. It's more or less to be in the background to remind people of what options the US has and that dealing in soft power with the US is far more preferable to both parties.

    Personally, I feel that Fidel's going to kick the can soon and once he's out of the way, Cuba can progress into something useful and productive to the world. Why prolong that any more than necessary?
    "If your opponent is of choleric temperament, seek to irritate him." - Sun Tzu

  3. #43
    Equal Opportunity Hater
    obvious Child's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    0.0, -2.3 on the Political Compass
    Last Seen
    12-09-14 @ 11:36 PM
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    19,883

    Re: Fidel Castro: Obama 'Misinterpreted' Raul's Words

    Quote Originally Posted by Triad View Post
    Could be any number of things.
    "Cashing in" is a phrase btw not a literal monetary payout.
    "Profit" can be any number of things.

    Care to name a single country in the world that's government has derived legitimacy solely from US recognition?

    The notion that a regime like Chavez which is almost universally seen as corrupt and illegitimate can suddenly gain legitimacy because Obama was conciliatory to them is to be ignorant of the past 100 years of political international relations.
    "If your opponent is of choleric temperament, seek to irritate him." - Sun Tzu

  4. #44
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Last Seen
    07-18-09 @ 04:56 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    1,041

    Re: Fidel Castro: Obama 'Misinterpreted' Raul's Words

    Cartoon was simply an example of one aspect gained by opponents do to Obama's appeasement based policies.

    Castro gained in his efforts to make the USA drop the embargo without him having to change anything. Then gained a lil propaganda coup afterwards by being able to say "bozo misunderstood what we meant."

    Chavez gained in being able to heighten his importance and perceptions of his power in the region.

    Hell! even Ortega gained...

    How much play they will be able to get out of all the aspects of this thing ..who knows..but they will play it for all its worth.
    Obama's failure to react to them but instead to appear to be embracing them more then our regional allies..It was a disaster.




    Tell me, do you think it was a bad idea for FDR to meet with Stalin? For Nixon to meet with Mao? For Reagan to meet with Gorbachev? For Bush to meet with King Abdullah al-Saud?

    Nope. Nor do I have a problem with Obama meeting those he met in the circumstances involved in their meeting.
    Last edited by Triad; 04-23-09 at 05:47 AM.

  5. #45
    Sexual Deviant
    GottaHurt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Florida
    Last Seen
    05-07-09 @ 04:58 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    2,899

    Re: Fidel Castro: Obama 'Misinterpreted' Raul's Words

    Quote Originally Posted by Lerxst View Post
    That's not "damage." But...I'll give you another chance. Please show me the "damage."
    Give me another chance. Move along Black Knight®, you've been debunked.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lerxst View Post
    Inappropriate comparison here.
    Only in your mind, because you've been completely destroyed here with your ignorant comments.

    If you are the President and you want to send a clear foreign policy message to enemy heads of state you do it yourself.
    Your position here demonstrates that you have absolutely no understanding of how foreign policy is crafted to achieve the desired result. It's tantamount, as has been proven throughout history, to send your best negotiator in to lay the ground work and/or reach an agreement in principle.

    Usually the Secretary of State is the principle negotiator, but your knowledge of history is suspect to say the very least.

    Kissinger: China

    Cyrus Vance: SALT II - Camp David Accord Egypt/Israel

    Baker: Former Soviet Union

    Albright: Bosnia

    Powell: International coalition Iraq Invasion (A cya move)

    Rice: Nothing notable

    Quote Originally Posted by Lerxst View Post
    Insanity is to continue doing what we''ve done for decades and expect things to somehow turn out differently.
    Insanity is the responses you've given in this thread. The above examples are the precise reasons the POTUS sends in underlings. With the exception of Rice having nothing notable in terms of foreign policy, each of the former SoS demonstrated beyond a reasonable doubt their worth in negotiating the above mentioned examples.

    You keep on your Presidential DIY Tim "ToolTime" Taylor projects though, it's fun seeing the results:

    Pain can be such a beautiful thing

  6. #46
    Every day I'm hustlin'..
    Lerxst's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Nationwide...
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:02 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    15,464

    Re: Fidel Castro: Obama 'Misinterpreted' Raul's Words

    Quote Originally Posted by GottaHurt View Post
    Give me another chance. Move along Black Knight®, you've been debunked.
    You've debunked nothing.
    Only in your mind, because you've been completely destroyed here with your ignorant comments.
    Negative.

    Your position here demonstrates that you have absolutely no understanding of how foreign policy is crafted to achieve the desired result. It's tantamount, as has been proven throughout history, to send your best negotiator in to lay the ground work and/or reach an agreement in principle.
    We aren't talking about the crafting of foreign policy or negotiating agreements at this point, nor did I even hint at that. Please try to stay focused. What I said was "If you are the President and you want to send a clear foreign policy message to enemy heads of state you do it yourself." Were we not in the middle of a debate over how Obama was handling Cuba? "Sending a message." Nobody said anything about crafting foreign policy or negotiating agreements, which is why I challenged your examples. You moved the goal posts in order to try and defend the way you botched your original statement. You are so desperate to score some Quixotic victory that you will try to reframe arguments in order to attack them. You've got a nasty history of this.

    Usually the Secretary of State is the principle negotiator, but your knowledge of history is suspect to say the very least.
    The only person talking about negotiating the actual terms of foreign relationships here is YOU. Obama wasn't negotiating actual policy with Chavez or Raul Castro. Nobody said anything about Obama being a principle (meaning primary) negotiator. We are talking about face to face dialog by heads of state and sending clear messages of intent. THAT was the discussion.

    Obama attempting to convince Chavez and Castro of his desire to normalize relations is NOT the same as having your Secretary of State negotiate the actual terms of the relations.
    Kissinger: China

    Cyrus Vance: SALT II - Camp David Accord Egypt/Israel

    Baker: Former Soviet Union

    Albright: Bosnia

    Powell: International coalition Iraq Invasion (A cya move)

    Rice: Nothing notable
    Your citation of these examples clearly shows you have no idea what Obama was doing or what the context of our conversation was. This is another example of your poor understanding of how to make your case. You can't move the goal posts and then proclaim you're winning.

    Insanity is the responses you've given in this thread. The above examples are the precise reasons the POTUS sends in underlings. With the exception of Rice having nothing notable in terms of foreign policy, each of the former SoS demonstrated beyond a reasonable doubt their worth in negotiating the above mentioned examples.
    No, insanity is you thinking you can get away shuffling and dancing your way through this discussion by making a case against a position I never actually took. This is very typical of certain posters. Rather than seek a clarification of another posters stance (because you clearly didn't understand or you are simply being incredibly dishonest in your debate tactics...or both) before you run off into the woods and make a fool of yourself, you just latch on like a dog with a bone and go to town. You've made an argument based solely on taking my comment out of the context of the original discussion.

    You keep on your Presidential DIY Tim "ToolTime" Taylor projects though, it's fun seeing the results:
    Thank you for your continued effort to assure the majority of the forum that they are right in their opinion of you.

    Now, go ahead with your patented GottaHurt Sniffle.
    *insert profound statement here*

  7. #47
    Sexual Deviant
    GottaHurt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Florida
    Last Seen
    05-07-09 @ 04:58 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    2,899

    Re: Fidel Castro: Obama 'Misinterpreted' Raul's Words

    Quote Originally Posted by Lerxst View Post
    You've debunked nothing.
    Opens with the classic Lerxst Nuh Uh®

    Quote Originally Posted by Lerxst View Post
    Negative.
    Wrong, it's a completely appropriate comparison. You'll try and dismiss it as inappropriate because it completely destroys your knowledge of how foreign policy is crafted.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lerxst View Post
    We aren't talking about the crafting of foreign policy or negotiating agreements at this point, nor did I even hint at that.
    It's precisely what is being discussed here.

    And your strategy of sending lesser diplomats is not the answer.

    If you are the President and you want to send a clear foreign policy message to enemy heads of state you do it yourself. You don't treat them like lowly pissants, even if that's what they are in comparison. Insanity is to continue doing what we''ve done for decades and expect things to somehow turn out differently.
    Quote Originally Posted by Lerxst View Post
    What I said was "If you are the President and you want to send a clear foreign policy message to enemy heads of state you do it yourself." Were we not in the middle of a debate over how Obama was handling Cuba? "Sending a message." Nobody said anything about crafting foreign policy or negotiating agreements, which is why I challenged your examples.
    Nice try, Not. Sending a message is crafting policy.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lerxst View Post
    You moved the goal posts in order to try and defend the way you botched your original statement. You are so desperate to score some Quixotic victory that you will try to reframe arguments in order to attack them. You've got a nasty history of this.
    Again, you try to divert attention away from your feeble attempt at debate.

    I've reframed nothing, merely pointing out your attempt at dodging in order to cover up the fact that you've once again taken up an ignorant position on the subject matter at hand. The nasty habit is yours.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lerxst View Post
    The only person talking about negotiating the actual terms of foreign relationships here is YOU. Obama wasn't negotiating actual policy with Chavez or Raul Castro.
    I never said he was. Here you are reframing the argument, you know, what you just accused me of.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lerxst View Post
    Nobody said anything about Obama being a principle (meaning primary) negotiator. We are talking about face to face dialog by heads of state and sending clear messages of intent. THAT was the discussion.
    No, the discussion was Obama blundering by giving a statement that backfired, in which I pointed out that that is showing how ignorant he is on foreign policy.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lerxst View Post
    Obama attempting to convince Chavez and Castro of his desire to normalize relations is NOT the same as having your Secretary of State negotiate the actual terms of the relations.
    Again, you're trying to reframe the argument. I clearly stated that they go in to lay the groundwork.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lerxst View Post
    Your citation of these examples clearly shows you have no idea what Obama was doing or what the context of our conversation was. This is another example of your poor understanding of how to make your case. You can't move the goal posts and then proclaim you're winning.
    My examples are spot on. Clearly showing how foreign policy is implemented and carried out.

    Your boy Obama has shown repeatedly he doesn't understand how to reach out through diplomatic channels in order to engage properly his foreign policy messege.

    Here you are, trying to defend the baffoon and his lack of knowledge on foreign policy implementation with your own inept interpretation of it.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lerxst View Post
    No, insanity is you thinking you can get away shuffling and dancing your way through this discussion by making a case against a position I never actually took. This is very typical of certain posters. Rather than seek a clarification of another posters stance (because you clearly didn't understand or you are simply being incredibly dishonest in your debate tactics...or both) before you run off into the woods and make a fool of yourself, you just latch on like a dog with a bone and go to town. You've made an argument based solely on taking my comment out of the context of the original discussion.
    Here we go, the famous Lerxst "I'm right your wrong because I said so" codswallup.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lerxst View Post
    Thank you for your continued effort to assure the majority of the forum that they are right in their opinion of you.
    With the typical follow up of "Me and my two friends here at DP don't like you" whine.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lerxst View Post
    Now, go ahead with your patented GottaHurt Sniffle.
    Imitation is the greatest form of flattery. I see you using many of my techniques now, and targeting myself & Palin quite frequently.

    Obsess much?
    Pain can be such a beautiful thing

  8. #48
    Every day I'm hustlin'..
    Lerxst's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Nationwide...
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:02 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    15,464

    Re: Fidel Castro: Obama 'Misinterpreted' Raul's Words

    Quote Originally Posted by GottaHurt View Post
    Opens with the classic Lerxst Nuh Uh®
    /yawn

    This has become your fallback when you lack any sort of intelligent response.

    Wrong, it's a completely appropriate comparison. You'll try and dismiss it as inappropriate because it completely destroys your knowledge of how foreign policy is crafted.
    /yawn

    Prepare for school kid.

    It's precisely what is being discussed here.
    No, it's not. You decided to try and force the thread that way because you opened your mouth and swallowed your shoe.

    Nice try, Not. Sending a message is crafting policy.
    No it's not. Crafting policy is actually developing policy.

    Main Entry:
    craft
    Function:
    transitive verb
    Date:
    15th century

    : to make or produce with care, skill, or ingenuity <is crafting a new sculpture> <a carefully crafted story>
    Communicating a policy already crafted is sending a message. In no way whatsoever was Obama engaged in crafting foreign policy when he offered to meet with Raul Castro and lift the embargo. Why is this so hard for you to get your head around? Using the media as a conduit to transmit a message that expresses a desire to meet and discuss our two nations relationship is a tactic that is born out of foreign policy that's already been developed by the administration. You just don't walk out and throw that out there if you haven't already put together your first half game plan. This is simply Obama recognizing the new President of Cuba as a legitimate head of state and communicating a desire normalize relations. Wow, sort of like Nixon did with Mao. Only difference here is Mao wouldn't tip his hand and demanded preconditions on Taiwan. Kissinger was sent in because he was needed at that specific juncture. What Obama was doing didn't require a Kissinger.

    Again, you try to divert attention away from your feeble attempt at debate.

    I've reframed nothing, merely pointing out your attempt at dodging in order to cover up the fact that you've once again taken up an ignorant position on the subject matter at hand. The nasty habit is yours.
    And notice you didn't actually debunk what I stated. You just said "no I didn't, you're just being mean."

    I never said he was. Here you are reframing the argument, you know, what you just accused me of.
    You absolutely made that argument when you started moving the goal posts around and bringing up why he should have sent a lesser diplomat instead of speaking to those leaders himself. Hell, all he did was make statements to the media about his willingness to meet with Castro and discuss relations, like Nixon did when he was seeking a face to face with Mao.

    When I challenged you on that you began bringing comparison of Kissinger and Brady to validate your case. It was an inappropriate comparison because the situations now and then are very different. You were making the argument that Obama was out of line for not sending someone like Clinton in there first to "lay ground work and reach agreements in principle." This wasn't a case of Obama trying to deal with a nuclear armed superpower during the Cold War. There is nothing for Clinton to go in and negotiate right now as we don't have an invitation to come down and begin actually negotiating agreements. The first in this case is for the heads of state to agree there is commons ground, and it's very politically strong to announce this on the world stage. This is about thawing relations, extending an olive branch of sorts to show the world that our President isn't above recognizing the leader of a hostile nation without preconditions. This is very important because you absolutely must take personalities into account. When you snub a world leader simply because you are ideologically opposed or because you subscribe to the strategy of "let's not legitimize them" then you are being insulting. Nothing positive comes of this unless it is your goal to maintain frosty relations.

    I don't know if you realize this or not, but Fidel Castro is no longer the President of Cuba, Raul Castro is. I don't care what that old bag of **** said, Raul Castro is in power. There is plenty of speculation right now that Raul and Fidel have different ideas about the future between the U.S. and Cuba.

    No, the discussion was Obama blundering by giving a statement that backfired, in which I pointed out that that is showing how ignorant he is on foreign policy.
    Not at that point it wasn't. The argument had evolved past that point. And your assertion that Obama is ignorant of foreign policy is rich consider the colossal pile of excrement your argument here is.

    Again, you're trying to reframe the argument. I clearly stated that they go in to lay the groundwork.
    Except that we weren't at that stage of negotiations so your bringing it up was both inappropriate and off base given the reasons you were criticizing Obama. There was no ground work to be laid for what was taking place. Obama was simply sending a message on the world stage and the President of Cuba responded positively. The ex-President of Cuba didn't like what Raul had to say and he voiced his opinion. Big deal. Fidel's time is over. It's like Bush coming out and saying "Obama is wrong in what he said." Nobody would care but W nut huggers.

    My examples are spot on. Clearly showing how foreign policy is implemented and carried out.
    You didn't clearly show anything. You used a poor comparisons to what the actual situation between Obama and Castro was. I went into more detail about Kissingers mission in China than you did and showed absolutely why your comparison was poor. In fact Obama is taking at least a similar approach in publicly stating he would meet with Raul Castro, like Nixon publicly stated he desired to travel to China and speak with Mao. Nixon wasn't "crafting foreign policy" with those statements, nor is Obama doing that here. They were sending messages based on foreign policy they have already at least partially framed out. The mere fact that they are making overtures of that nature means that some degree of policy work has already been done.

    You're problem here is that you really don't know what you are talking about...hence your injection of Brady and insinuating that he had some meaningful role in the downfall of Communism in eastern Europe. This alone sheds a massive white light on your level of understanding of the subject matter.

    Your boy Obama has shown repeatedly he doesn't understand how to reach out through diplomatic channels in order to engage properly his foreign policy messege.
    That is your opinion. And you base it only on the fact that you don't like him. You don't have the foggiest clue as to what proper amounts to here. The fact that the President of Cuba was so quick to respond positively to Obama's overture is evidence that he sincerely interested discussing the future between our nations.

    Here you are, trying to defend the baffoon and his lack of knowledge on foreign policy implementation with your own inept interpretation of it.
    No, I'm just here pointing out how moronic your argument is. You have no choice but to pluck posts out of context and then try to use them as some sort of evidence. That's all you have.

    Here we go, the famous Lerxst "I'm right your wrong because I said so" codswallup.
    I'm right because I'm right and you have done nothing to prove me wrong. You're case here wouldn't pass muster in a high school debate club.

    With the typical follow up of "Me and my two friends here at DP don't like you" whine.
    Yeah, and you might want to see if University of Phoenix Online has math classes available. More of the GottaHurt Sniffle®.

    Imitation is the greatest form of flattery. I see you using many of my techniques now, and targeting myself & Palin quite frequently.
    Technique? It's called mockery. You get that a lot here in case you didn't notice.

    Obsess much?
    No, I just enjoy walking you into the floor on things like this.
    *insert profound statement here*

  9. #49
    Every day I'm hustlin'..
    Lerxst's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Nationwide...
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:02 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    15,464

    Re: Fidel Castro: Obama 'Misinterpreted' Raul's Words

    Quote Originally Posted by Triad View Post
    Cartoon was simply an example of one aspect gained by opponents do to Obama's appeasement based policies.
    What has Obama sacrificed in principle with these "appeasement policies" you speak of?

    Castro gained in his efforts to make the USA drop the embargo without him having to change anything. Then gained a lil propaganda coup afterwards by being able to say "bozo misunderstood what we meant."
    Fidel Castro gained nothing from this, he's not the President of Cuba anymore. He ran his mouth, nothing more. You act as if normalizing relations with Cuba is only something that would benefit Cuba, and that the U.S. will lose out if we do this. God forbid we should actually become friendly with Cuba, I mean because who needs them when we have Saudi Arabia right? Yeah, we need to avoid Cuba like the plague, what would the rest of the world think?

    Chavez gained in being able to heighten his importance and perceptions of his power in the region.
    You aren't even close to articulating a meaningful gain here. Chavez is already a legitimate head of state, in charge of one of the top ten oil producing nations in the world. His importance in the region, in the world, is already established or hadn't you noticed? The U.S. President recognizing him and working towards normalizing relations with him does nothing to actually increase his level of power or influence.

    Hell! even Ortega gained...
    No, Ortega gained nothing. You saying he did doesn't translate into an actual valid argument. You have to articulate the gain.

    How much play they will be able to get out of all the aspects of this thing ..who knows..but they will play it for all its worth.
    But you can't seem to actually express in any demonstrable way what they will actually gain in terms of power, influence, or tangible item. So..what did they gain again?
    Obama's failure to react to them but instead to appear to be embracing them more then our regional allies..It was a disaster.
    So please tell me how it was a disaster. In what way? I don't want your partisan opinion, I want some evidence that this was a disaster.
    Last edited by Lerxst; 04-24-09 at 01:51 AM.
    *insert profound statement here*

  10. #50
    Every day I'm hustlin'..
    Lerxst's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Nationwide...
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:02 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    15,464

    Re: Fidel Castro: Obama 'Misinterpreted' Raul's Words

    Quote Originally Posted by GottaHurt View Post
    Indeed they will, but in the meantime you don't give them any opportunity on the world stage. As I suggested, send a lesser diplomat to keep the damage to a minimum.
    Still waiting on you to articulate the "damage" that needs minimizing here.
    Last edited by Lerxst; 04-24-09 at 02:01 AM.
    *insert profound statement here*

Page 5 of 9 FirstFirst ... 34567 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •