Forum Thread

President Obama Cancels Summit With Putin

Reply to ThreadDisplaying 12 Posts
  • Strongly Liberal Democrat
    Democrat
    Portland, OR
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    President Obama has cancelled an upcoming summit between he and Vladimir Putin that was supposed to have taken place on the sidelines of the G20 Summit in Russia. Multiple reasons were listed, but Russia's decision to grant temporary asylum to NSA leaker Edward Snowden undoubtedly played a major factor in the decision.

    Thoughts on the President cancelling the bilateral summit? Did the President have no other choice or should he have kept the scheduled meeting and used it as an opportunity to personally lobby Putin to release Snowden?
  • Other Party
    Nebraska
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    If they had the meeting President Obama won't (and can't) do anything about the Snowden situation and Putin knows it.

    Putin likes antagonizing the US, he's a cold war era spy and still wants to act as if the cold war is still in full swing. The way he sees it he's a professional KGB dictator and he's up against a community organizer who just wants everyone to get along. Putin doesn't really want to get along, he likes to keep a little tension between our countries.

    What was President Obama going to do, grovel, and whine about Snowden and have Putin ignore him? Better to just skip the meeting.
  • Democrat
    Philadelphia, PA
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Personally speaking, I don't think Putin really gives a damn one way or the other, he has no respect for this country or its leaders, he is still pissed about "dente", I hope I spelled it right.
  • Liberal Democrat
    Democrat
    Colorado Springs, CO
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    As a matter of principle, I always like it when heads of state are talking to each other. There is certainly much that they disagree upon, but is it not a sign of strength to confront issues or people head on rather than refuse to talk at all? Maybe little progress can actually be made, but President Obama needs to look Putin in the eye and be firm. At least it would demonstrate Obama's resolve...and put doubt in Putin's mind about what he's actually achieving by protecting Snowden. What happens after one year...and the years beyond that? Snowden could become a real pain in the ass for Putin the longer he stays on Russian soil.

    I do note that Secretary Kerry and Secretary Hagel will be meeting with their counterparts.
  • Independent
    Ft.myers, FL
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Schmidt Wrote: As a matter of principle, I always like it when heads of state are talking to each other. There is certainly much that they disagree upon, but is it not a sign of strength to confront issues or people head on rather than refuse to talk at all? Maybe little progress can actually be made, but President Obama needs to look Putin in the eye and be firm. At least it would demonstrate Obama's resolve...and put doubt in Putin's mind about what he's actually achieving by protecting Snowden. What happens after one year...and the years beyond that? Snowden could become a real pain in the ass for Putin the longer he stays on Russian soil.

    I do note that Secretary Kerry and Secretary Hagel will be meeting with their counterparts.
    Schmidt, I find the whole thing kind of childisch; in this modern world and its technology (even in Russia) people spy on each other for whatever reason; the Snowden issue is ridiculous; the US is the worst offender in this area, so leave it alone stand above it and act like a leader not a little kid who got stepped on its toes. It is time the US gets of its high horse and keeps on thinking they can dictate the world what to do or not to do.
    A typical example of screw ups is the Yemen thing right now; Al Q. is only expanding in that country because of our interfering in this country. We with our drones are often killing innocent people who's family and friends in turn then join the rebels. (like I mentioned inmany of my mails before) The people themselves do not support their own government, so that government asked us to support them with support from the US, which makes those common people hate us even more etc. In the meantime that country's economics are totally down the drain and people are hungry. So we hit them with missiles and bombs. What ever happened to the US who were loved for their actions after WWII? Then they dropped bread etc. all over famine Europe, instead of bombs. No the US mentality should change drastically; provide these types of countries with food,education, health programs etc. then they will love you for it and do not join rebels etc. There was a full documentary on PBS about this, hope you looked.
  • Other Party
    Nebraska
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Good morning Dutch,

    Your opinion about drone strikes is not shared by President Obama. According to Reuters we have launched at least 5 drone strikes in Yemen since July 28th killing at least 20 "militants".

    That's a lot of charred bodies.
  • Independent
    Ft.myers, FL
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    jamesn Wrote: Good morning Dutch,

    Your opinion about drone strikes is not shared by President Obama. According to Reuters we have launched at least 5 drone strikes in Yemen since July 28th killing at least 20 "militants".

    That's a lot of charred bodies.
    Sorry it is not my opinion but the opinion ofthe moderator and the American reporter which was reporting from that country; try to retrieve that documentary, I forgot the date,but was very interesting; probably Schmidt can retrieve it.
  • Other Party
    Nebraska
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Dutch Sorry, I assumed that was your opinion. As far as reporters go, you can get reporters to say ANYTHING.

    If you want a reporter who will say that the drone strikes are bad, and give reasons why they are bad, there's a reporter out there who will say it. If you want a reporter who will say that the drone strikes are good, and give reasons why they are good, there's a reporter out there who will say it.

    My dismay with President Obama is that he increased the war in Afghanistan instead of getting us out years ago and he also increased the drone strikes. I thought he was going to get us out of the wars. Very disappointing.

    Also, I heard that there have been 3 more drone strikes in Yemen just in the last 24 hours.
  • Liberal Democrat
    Democrat
    Colorado Springs, CO
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Dutch --

    Yes, I agree that the way the Snowden issue is being handled is a bit childish. However, the reasons for the "postponement" of the meeting between Obama and Putin cover not only non-progress on Snowden, but also Syria, LGBT and the Olympics, and more. Maybe we'll hear more at President Obama's press conference today. Obama did use the word "postponed" but the media changed it to "cancelled." My guess is that it will take place at some point when the media sensationalism of the Snowden temporary Russian visa dies down. Nevertheless, I think Obama still should have held the talks now.

    Regarding the drone strikes, I also agree that in the long run they are doing more harm than good for the perception of the United States. It's a PR nightmare. Even if they are killing legitimate Al Qaeda targets, we cannot control the public opinion in Yemen or for that matter anywhere in the Arab and Muslim world. I couldn't find the article you referenced, but I did find this January 2013 academic paper by Michael J. Boyle in Chatham House, International Affairs, which pretty much sums up the situation.

    Michael J. Boyle: The costs and consequences of drone warfare

    This is a copyrighted article and you need to be a subscriber to Chatham House to download it from their website, but I found it elsewhere on the internet. In any case, I won't copy any text from the paper. Chatham House provides a good summary to stimulate your interest:

    "This article argues that much of the existing debate on drones operates with an attenuated notion of effectiveness that discounts the political and strategic dynamics — such as the corrosion of the perceptions of competence and legitimacy of governments where drone strikes take place, growing anti-Americanism and fresh recruitment of militant networks — that reveal the costs of drone warfare. Focusing particularly on drone use in Pakistan, Yemen and Somalia, the article suggests that the Obama administration's counterterrorism policy operates at cross-purposes because it provides a steady flow of arms and financial resources to build up governments whose legitimacy it systematically undermines by conducting unilateral strikes on their territory. It concludes that the US embrace of drone technology is a losing proposition over the long term as it will usher in a new arms race and lay the foundations for an international system that is increasingly violent, destabilized and polarized between those who have drones and those who are victims of them."

    It's a lengthy, well researched paper if you have the time to read it. I think you'll agree with it. I do.
  • Independent
    Ft.myers, FL
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Thanks Schmidt,I'll drink some of your brew! Anyway I've got the impression from you guys, reporters and your findings that indeed the US shoots itself in the foot with these foreign policies. Eventually Al Quada will only grow and we will be the target; do we really want that? As I said before if you help these countries with food and education which is a lot cheaper than drones etc. we will make much more headway. However the warmongers and the war industry will not like such, so who wins?. Not a difficult guess. But in the end we will loose!!
  • Independent
    South Attleboro, MA
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    As per normal. Pres. Obama is the victim in chief. This guy appears so over his head. As have most of our recent presidents. Maybe he should go on vacation - Oh ! Never mind he already is.....
  • Strongly Liberal Democrat
    Democrat
    Portland, OR
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    JGordon Wrote: As per normal. Pres. Obama is the victim in chief. This guy appears so over his head. As have most of our recent presidents. Maybe he should go on vacation - Oh ! Never mind he already is.....
    I'm not quite sure what you are talking about here. Did I miss the President claiming he was some sort of victim when he cancelled the summit with Putin? Are you insinuating that he is in over his head because he couldn't force a sovereign country to bend to his will and deport Mr. Snowden back to the United States? If that is what you are insinuating, then I'm sorry to inform you that international politics are far more complex than that.