Consequences for "reset button" bad behavior

[OCinBuffalo]

Link here

 

"U.S. Ambassador Susan Rice called Russia's veto a "slap in the face," and said the U.S. was "outraged" that the UN Security Council had failed to address an urgent moral challenge and a growing threat to regional peace and security."

Which is more "outrageous"?

The above...or

That Susan Rice, who has literally created and advocated for the foreign policies Obama pursued, is now "shocked" that they produced these consequences? This is laughable.

 

Here's what's not laughable: this lady was lined up to be Kerry's NSA. She has been crafting these positions and policies since working for Clinton. No other single person is more responsible for these outcomes, short of Obama himself. This is the very same person who successfully advised Clinton not to take Osama Bin Laden, when Sudan was offering him up on a platter.

 

I am sorry lady, but Russia doesn't take you seriously, and really, nobody should. You advocate for weakness and dithering in the face of provocation, and for the Russians? That means it's open season on your silly ass. Outrage? The only outrage here is how you ended up with the jobs you've had. Fail upwards much?

 

Yes, these are the consequences of the "smart diplomacy" bad behavior. More accurately, this is what happens when you blatantly ignore the realities of dealing with Russia, Iran, etc., and then call it "smart". The problem is: I don't see how Obama could have gotten out of this one. Being a Democrat apparently means you have to accept incompetent, authoritarians like this(see: Clinton and Kerry). However, perhaps it's more accurate to say that being a weak leader like Obama means you have to accept it.

 

I guarantee that Hillary, especially since Bill took the hit for letting Osama get away, would have sent this buffoon to Africa, where she has devoted much time and our resources anyway, on some economics thing, never to be heard from again.

[Gary M]

Link here

 

"U.S. Ambassador Susan Rice called Russia's veto a "slap in the face," and said the U.S. was "outraged" that the UN Security Council had failed to address an urgent moral challenge and a growing threat to regional peace and security."

Which is more "outrageous"?

The above...or

That Susan Rice, who has literally created and advocated for the foreign policies Obama pursued, is now "shocked" that they produced these consequences? This is laughable.

 

Here's what's not laughable: this lady was lined up to be Kerry's NSA. She has been crafting these positions and policies since working for Clinton. No other single person is more responsible for these outcomes, short of Obama himself. This is the very same person who successfully advised Clinton not to take Osama Bin Laden, when Sudan was offering him up on a platter.

 

I am sorry lady, but Russia doesn't take you seriously, and really, nobody should. You advocate for weakness and dithering in the face of provocation, and for the Russians? That means it's open season on your silly ass. Outrage? The only outrage here is how you ended up with the jobs you've had. Fail upwards much?

 

Yes, these are the consequences of the "smart diplomacy" bad behavior. More accurately, this is what happens when you blatantly ignore the realities of dealing with Russia, Iran, etc., and then call it "smart". The problem is: I don't see how Obama could have gotten out of this one. Being a Democrat apparently means you have to accept incompetent, authoritarians like this(see: Clinton and Kerry). However, perhaps it's more accurate to say that being a weak leader like Obama means you have to accept it.

 

I guarantee that Hillary, especially since Bill took the hit for letting Osama get away, would have sent this buffoon to Africa, where she has devoted much time and our resources anyway, on some economics thing, never to be heard from again.

You shouldn't be so hard on her, she was "trying really hard".

[/dev/null]

With the failure of the Reset Button policy, will this Administration attempt the Up Up Down Down Left Right Left Right B A Select Start policy?

 

[Booster4324]

With the failure of the Reset Button policy, will this Administration attempt the Up Up Down Down Left Right Left Right B A Select Start policy?

 

 

 

Someone needs to find the cheat codes soon.

[DC Tom]

With the failure of the Reset Button policy, will this Administration attempt the Up Up Down Down Left Right Left Right B A Select Start policy?

 

 

 

I don't think it's as serious a blow to Obama's policy as it's made out to be.

 

Let's not forget, Russia has bunch of Muslim former SSRs on their southern border, not to mention minority ethnicities within their borders (e.g. Chechens), that makes Western support of "regime change" in a geographically near client state like Syria a more practical matter than just "sticking it to Obama".

Edited October 5, 2011 by DC Tom

[OCinBuffalo]

 

I don't think it's as serious a blow to Obama's policy as it's made out to be.

 

Let's not forget, Russia has bunch of Muslim former SSRs on their southern border, not to mention minority ethnicities within their borders (e.g. Chechens), that makes Western support of "regime change" in a geographically near client state like Syria a more practical matter than just "sticking it to Obama".

You are dreaming if you think that Putin would have pulled this stunt on Bush.

 

I know what you are saying and why, but come on man, this is a non-issue for Russia. They are simply doing what Russians have been doing since Peter the Great: bide their time, wait for what they perceive to be weakness and then exploit it. As we know, sometimes their perceptions have been off, but, that doesn't mean the strategy changes. This is merely a chess move for them, whose main effect is: we have gone from 5 to -10 on the scale of dealing with them, in all things.

 

It will take years to gain back ground that was lost by this infant. Russians only understand the stick. Hell, they WANT the stick, they like the stick, if for nothing else than to know they are still "alive" and relevant, that their lives have meaning...yet these idiots kept giving them carrots. Who is Putin...without the pre-Obama USA? Think about that.

 

How does he redefine his existence in a world where the USA suddenly = pussies? He does the only thing he can do, because its the only thing he knows: whip it out. Hey, it's an appropriate analogy, we are talking Putin here, after all, so that means he is just as likely stick it in Obama as Rice.

[....lybob]

You are dreaming if you think that Putin would have pulled this stunt on Bush.

 

I know what you are saying and why, but come on man, this is a non-issue for Russia. They are simply doing what Russians have been doing since Peter the Great: bide their time, wait for what they perceive to be weakness and then exploit it. As we know, sometimes their perceptions have been off, but, that doesn't mean the strategy changes. This is merely a chess move for them, whose main effect is: we have gone from 5 to -10 on the scale of dealing with them, in all things.

 

It will take years to gain back ground that was lost by this infant. Russians only understand the stick. Hell, they WANT the stick, they like the stick, if for nothing else than to know they are still "alive" and relevant, that their lives have meaning...yet these idiots kept giving them carrots. Who is Putin...without the pre-Obama USA? Think about that.

 

How does he redefine his existence in a world where the USA suddenly = pussies? He does the only thing he can do, because its the only thing he knows: whip it out. Hey, it's an appropriate analogy, we are talking Putin here, after all, so that means he is just as likely stick it in Obama as Rice.

The only consequence the Russian veto is about is the consequence of NATO backed regime change in Libya under the guise of "protecting civilians".

[OCinBuffalo]

The only consequence the Russian veto is about is the consequence of NATO backed regime change in Libya under the guise of "protecting civilians".

 

Yeah, it has nothing to do with Syria at all.