Canadians favor Obama over McCain

[Goofball]

Not that surprising. As the article notes, we Canucks typically favor the Democrat candidate over the Republican offering. What is surprising is the huge margin by which we favor Obama. Even in Alberta, the Canadian bastion of conservatism (Alberta is our Texas), respondants favored Obama by a 28% margin.

I suspect it's mainly a reflection of how we northerners are completely disgusted with Bush, and have a hard time seeing McCain as anything different.

Anyhoo, since we don't vote in your election, this is just a bit of fluff, but I also found it interesting. It would be more interesting to see a poll on how Canadians feel about Hillary vs. Obama.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080521.wobama_mccain0521/BNStory/National/home


Canadians favour Obama over McCain


ALEXANDER PANETTA
The Canadian Press
May 21, 2008 at 4:15 PM EDT

Ottawa — Democrat Barack Obama would crush Republican John McCain in the U.S. presidential race by an almost four-to-one margin — 56 per cent to 15 — if it were up to Canadians.
That's the conclusion of a new Canadian Press-Harris-Decima poll that, for the first time, gauges Canadian opinion on a head-to-head contest between the Republican candidate and the presumptive Democratic nominee.
The same survey suggests Canadians consider the current occupant of the White House, George W. Bush, among the worst presidents ever — if not the worst.
Forty-two per cent of respondents called Mr. Bush one of the worst presidents in U.S. history, 23 per cent said he was the absolute worst.

Only 4 per cent said he was among the better ones, and less than 1 per cent called Mr. Bush the best ever.
Pollster Bruce Anderson says the survey results are surprising even in a country that traditionally favours Democrats.
“While Canadians generally tilt more towards the Democratic Party than the Republican Party, this degree of disaffection is quite remarkable,” said the head of Harris-Decima.
“It cuts across the political spectrum. Very few Conservatives in Canada are prepared to say they have been satisfied, let alone enthusiastic about the accomplishments of Mr. Bush.”
While some of that antipathy toward the incumbent Republican could explain Canadians' overwhelming support for the presumed Democratic nominee, Mr. Anderson says Canadians like Mr. Obama for other reasons.
He says the candidate's three main promises are in lock-step with Canadian public opinion. His public declarations that he would renegotiate NAFTA appear, so far, to have ruffled few Canadian feathers.
Mr. Obama has said his first priorities in office would be expanding public health care, ending the war in Iraq, and creating an integrated environmental-energy policy.
“They're pretty consistent with Canadian values,” Mr. Anderson said.
The results were similar among different age groups, gender's, income categories, and in every province.
Even in the province where Mr. Obama was least popular — Alberta — respondents favoured him by a 28-point margin over McCain. Fifty-one per cent of respondents there supported Mr. Obama, and 23 per cent preferred McCain.
Mr. Obama was most popular in Quebec where 61 per cent of respondents favoured him, and was almost equally popular in Manitoba, Saskatchewan, and British Columbia.
While the Illinois senator has struggled somewhat with lower-income and female voters in his primary contests against Hillary Clinton, the survey suggests he would not have no problem with them in Canada.
He received statistically identical support levels from men and women, and from respondents in different income categories.
The survey of 1,000 Canadians was conducted May 15-18 and is considered accurate to within 3.1 percentage points, 19 times in 20.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Canadians favor Obama over McCain

I think any Canadian could have told you that. ~;)


It would be more interesting to see a poll on how Canadians feel about Hillary vs. Obama.

I think it would still lean towards Obama, maybe even by a similar margin.

[FactionHeir]

Even after all the NAFTA stuff?

[Goofball]

Even after all the NAFTA stuff?

As the article stated, that didn't seem to hurt him. At any rate, when Canada signed on to NAFTA there was considerable resistance here. Perhaps some of that sentiment still remains and some still feel we'd be better of without NAFTA.

The Americans have already shown us that NAFTA isn't really worth the paper it's written on; if they want to tax our exports (softwood lumber, for example) they'll go ahead and do it, NAFTA and international courts be damned...

What would we really be losing?

[Beirut]

Yep, we Canucks are true Obama fans. I said it before; if Obama wins and comes north for a state visit, he's going to get a reception like Elvis, the Beatles, and JFK all rolled into one.

[Xiahou]

Yep, we Canucks are true Obama fans. I said it before; if Obama wins and comes north for a state visit, he's going to get a reception like Elvis, the Beatles, and JFK all rolled into one.
Why?

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Why?

Most Canadians (especially urban), from my experience, seem to prefer candiates who inspire and have a message, rather than politicians who necessarily get things done. Take Stephen Harper - in my opinion, one of the best PMs Canada has had in at least a decade - who many residents of Ontario (I can't speak for outside of Ontario) like to slag off when they get the chance.

Even especially the CBC does it. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bDw5a0_iFBk)

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

I don't care, they can keep both.

[Papewaio]

I thought Canada was part of Chicago or was that Babe-a-go?

[KarlXII]

Can't wait for the Territories delegate votes :2thumbsup:

[Beirut]

Why?

Relief that the W nightmare is over, for one. Also, that the US has found itself again, that a man from nowhere can rise up and achieve great things. After eight years of Bush, seeing a young black guy who espouses change come up the ranks like this is very inspiring.

I obviously can't speak for how y'all Americans see this from this inside, but from the outside, it's nothing less than astounding. I think having Obama in the White House would bring a lot of friends back into the American corner.

We lefty weak-kneed commie Canadians take a big interest in what y'all are doing down there as it affects us up here. When someone like Bush "does his thing" and wags his tail, we get swatted with it on the back swing. We're looking forward to having a President next door whose philosophy goes beyond "you're either with us or against us."

[Goofball]

Most Canadians (especially urban), from my experience, seem to prefer candiates who inspire and have a message, rather than politicians who necessarily get things done. Take Stephen Harper - in my opinion, one of the best PMs Canada has had in at least a decade - who many residents of Ontario (I can't speak for outside of Ontario) like to slag off when they get the chance.

Even especially the CBC does it. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bDw5a0_iFBk)

I'm with you on that one. I like Harper. I was leery of him at first, because of his Reform/Alliance background, but he has shown himself to be my kind of conservative: one who puts fiscal responsability first and leaves Christian morality as a personal choice for Canadians, not something to be legislated.

[Beirut]

...and leaves Christian morality as a personal choice for Canadians, not something to be legislated.

Here - here! :applause:

I don't care if our PM is an atheist, pagan, Christian, Jew, Muslim, or worships of the Flying Spaghetti Monster and has eight wives, as long as he shuts up about it and spend his time in office protecting the freedoms and privacies of the common man. A lot of Canadians feel this way.

Obama (I think) is far more likely to protect the personal freedoms of Americans than any of the other candidates, that's another reason Canadians like him.

[Devastatin Dave]

And in other news, the sky is still blue, the grass continues to be green, and Rosie O'Donnel's breath still smells like old tuna.

[Devastatin Dave]

. I think having Obama in the White House would bring a lot of friends back into the American corner.

LOL, uh-hu...

[Goofball]

LOL, uh-hu...

You don't think so Dave? Though their reasoning might be wrong, I'm inclined to agree that a lot of nations that have been lukewarm toward you guys over the past eight years might well make conciliatory gestures if Obama were to be elected.

[Beirut]

LOL, uh-hu...

Always happy to make you laugh Dave, you Senior Member type of guy, you. :sunny:

I was only offering an outsider's view in. Nothing more. Take it for the two cents it's worth.

[Devastatin Dave]

Take it for the two cents it's worth.
With the rate the dollar is going, it ain't much!!! But in all seriousness, I wouldn't be too happy around the world if Obama is elected over McCain. Obama is still all for this ethanol garbage which is causing food shortages and prices to go up, McCain has always been against it. Of course you'll never hear this if Obama's elected since the media is in the tank for him. SOme of the policies he's suggesting will cause more harm to the world than GW could cause in 3 terms. But you'll never read about it or understand it. So we'll have to agree to disagree.

[Devastatin Dave]

You don't think so Dave? Though their reasoning might be wrong, I'm inclined to agree that a lot of nations that have been lukewarm toward you guys over the past eight years might well make conciliatory gestures if Obama were to be elected.
I know North Korea and the Iranians (not necessarily the citizens, but Anotherdinnerjacket and Kim Jong Il) will be thrilled when he puts his hand on the Quran next year.:laugh4:

[KarlXII]

Well, I can't agree with his proclaimed position to appease Iran.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Well, I can't agree with his proclaimed position to appease Iran.

I'm more curious on how the policies of Republicans compare to the policies of Democrats over Israel. While I don't necessarily like what Israel is doing to the Palestinians, at least they don't want to strap bombs to their chests and blow up Westerners. They're on our side - it's not necessarily a moral choice, but it's realpolitik, and I am nothing if not a fan of Bismarck.

[Beirut]

Well, I can't agree with his proclaimed position to appease Iran.

How would you qualify the word "appease" in this case? Do you define it as merely talking, or is Obama planning to hand over the Sudetenland to Ahmadinejad?

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Do you define it as merely talking, or is Obama planning to hand over the Sudetenland to Ahmadinejad?

Better they have it than those damned Czechs.

~;)

[Crazed Rabbit]

Obama (I think) is far more likely to protect the personal freedoms of Americans than any of the other candidates, that's another reason Canadians like him.

I think Obama is much more disdainful of the constitution than McCain.


How would you qualify the word "appease" in this case? Do you define it as merely talking, or is Obama planning to hand over the Sudetenland to Ahmadinejad?

Going over to molly-coddle Iran's leaders and act as though their whacked out statements are legitimate greviences.

"Why yes, it is such a hardship you endure with Israel's existence."

CR

[Tribesman]

Going over to molly-coddle Iran's leaders and act as those their whacked out statements are legitimate greviences.

It isn't a whacked out statement and it is a legitimate grievance , no country on this planet recognises the state currently based from Jerusalem .

[The Black Ship]

It isn't a whacked out statement and it is a legitimate grievance , no country on this planet recognises the state currently based from Jerusalem .
Huh?

You saying noone recognizes Israel?

[KukriKhan]

Huh?

You saying noone recognizes Israel?

I think he means: in it's current geographical configuration.

WB, The Black Ship. Good to see an old-timer. :bow:

[Beirut]

I think Obama is much more disdainful of the constitution than McCain.

In what way?


Going over to molly-coddle Iran's leaders and act as those their whacked out statements are legitimate greviences.

"Why yes, it is such a hardship you endure with Israels existence."

CR

Ohhh, that's a whole lot of assumptions. We jumped from talking, to appeasing, to accepting their most extreme grievances as legitimate. Let's just stick to what the issue is; talking. Just... talking.

What about McCain, do you see him as so inherently weak-willed that if he was to be in the same room as Ahmedinejad he'd hand over Alaska and his first born simply because the Iranian leader is so indomitable in spirit that any American in his presence will be reduced to servility? Why do you have so little faith in the moral fortitude of your fellow Americans? Isn't there any man in your country who can go face to face with Amedinejad and tell him what the score is?

A strong and intelligent man isn't afraid to talk to anyone about anything. Communication isn't molly-coddling; communication is communication.

[The Black Ship]

Doesn't it boil down to what Obama is going to say? If he's just going to repeat current policy and position then what's the point? Talking between states usually requires give and take... what's Obama willing to give? Nukes? Support for Israel? Acceptance of Iranian support for Hezbo? Winking at Iran's arming of Alqueda in Iraq and the Mahdi army?

He's already saying he's scooting out of Iraq nomatterwhat... who's he willing to play ball with in the region once we're out and Iraq falls back to civil war?

[Beirut]

I don't understand, and I mean I really don't understand, why, in some people's mind an essential component of communication must be to cave in like a sinkhole during the conversation.

Why is the other guy so strong and your guy so weak? Why, in your view, can't an American leader talk to another national leader without collapsing like a house of cards?

Teddy Roosevelt would be aghast.

[Crazed Rabbit]

It isn't a whacked out statement and it is a legitimate grievance , no country on this planet recognises the state currently based from Jerusalem .

Oh, hardy, har. Wow. Somehow I really don't think changing the location of Israel's capital will make the Iranians want to buy the world a coke.


In what way?

The bill of rights, about which he is a two faced liar.


Let's just stick to what the issue is; talking. Just... talking.


Yay. More of the 'talking is a good unto itself' claptrap. If he went and told them that they're a bunch of cowards for hanging women who get raped and homosexuals, I wouldn't mind so much. But does anyone think he's going to go and tell them what for? But to listen to what they have to say and not respond as any civilized person would - Israel exists, tough cookies, etc., but to instead act like there's lucidity in their lunacy will get us nothing and hearten them.


Teddy Roosevelt would be aghast.

Only because Obama wants to break our stick the minute he gains power.

CR

[Tribesman]

Huh?

You saying noone recognizes Israel?

Yes , there isn't a single country that recognises the state in the territory it claims .


Oh, hardy, har. Wow. Somehow I really don't think changing the location of Israel's capital will make the Iranians want to buy the world a coke.

Well you can make that statement Rabbit ...but the earlier one was pure bollox wasn't it since there are plenty of legitimate grievances

[Banquo's Ghost]

Yay. More of the 'talking is a good unto itself' claptrap. If he went and told them that they're a bunch of cowards for hanging women who get raped and homosexuals, I wouldn't mind so much. But does anyone think he's going to go and tell them what for? But to listen to what they have to say and not respond as any civilized person would - Israel exists, tough cookies, etc., but to instead act like there's lucidity in their lunacy will get us nothing and hearten them.

Now, I know you have a more nuanced understanding of politics than that, even accepting the lens of your dislike for Senator Obama.

Almost every statesman of note has done exactly what you dismiss in this post. When talking with dictatorships in private conference, very blunt words are often exchanged and the recipient left in no doubt as to the likely repercussions of a policy.

Then, in front of the press, each side claims to have "had full and frank discussions which form the basis of continuing dialogue."

What gets said to the wider world - usually anodyne - is posturing. This is most certainly true of Ahmadinejad who is invariably talking at a constituency at home, not to the USA. The value of face-to-face meetings - at least the private element - is that undiplomatic words can be exchanged and clarity established. One can listen to the other side - how many times do we, mere citizens, complain about the bias and obfuscation of the press? Would we want to run a foreign policy that could lead men to their deaths on the reports of our media?

A meeting with Ahmadinejad could strip away his fantasies, probably indulged by his immediate circle, and leave in him in no doubt as to the real consequences of his actions and policies. The president would also be able to look him in the eye and judge what manner of man he might be - all mouth and trousers or a man of radical steel?

Whether or not you think Senator Obama is the man capable of doing that is irrelevant - the point is, face-to-face talking is the only way to really make progress for peace. Megaphone diplomacy only leads to wars.

[Tribesman]

Only because Obama wants to break our stick the minute he gains power.

Rabbit , I don't quite know how to break it to ya ,but I think there has been a development over these past five years that you might want to know about .
Your stick is broken , everyone knows your stick is broken , surprisingly despite being isolated even the Iranians know your stick is broken..though perhaps they know that because it was their agents telling Bush what he wanted to hear that got your stick stuck in the sand and bent to breaking point in the first place

[Beirut]

The point is, face-to-face talking is the only way to really make progress for peace. Megaphone diplomacy only leads to wars.

Damn straight! Wonderful post.

From A to Z, it's all about communication.

[Banquo's Ghost]

I think that Crazed Rabbit has a point however, when it comes to the person delivering the message.

Invariably, it takes a Reagan or Rabin to bring the message home. Someone with authority based on track record. For example, President Bush could not hold useful talks with the Iranians because, as Tribesman eloquently notes, his mistakes have rendered him a laughing stock.

A President Obama would have, initially, a mountain to climb in terms of being taken seriously. But charm and persuasion can go a long way too, especially in the Middle East. Like the Chinese, politicians there are very susceptible to "face" and Obama may well be very good at that game. Of course, this would make the conservatives back home go puce, because they are unlikely to accept the necessary compromises - but then they are going to have a collective coronary whatever Obama does.

I don't think Senator McCain has any advantage here, having publicly associated himself with the Bush doctrine which is so broken. For him, any climb-down as president would be an utter humiliation, so he's a bit stuck. However, he might just have the gravitas to pull off such a change if the ground work was done right.

The good news for either candidate is that soon after their election, Ahmadinejad is likely to have been dumped onto the same scrapheap of history as President Bush. That will present an opportunity of historic proportions for whoever is willing to talk with Iran.

[The Black Ship]

I don't understand, and I mean I really don't understand, why, in some people's mind an essential component of communication must be to cave in like a sinkhole during the conversation.

Why is the other guy so strong and your guy so weak? Why, in your view, can't an American leader talk to another national leader without collapsing like a house of cards?

Teddy Roosevelt would be aghast.


But that's my point...why does HE have to speak. That's what the State Department's for. Obama's usurpation of their role serves no purpose other than to legitimize the opponent. Sending a President to negotiate with a foreign leader sends the message that the two are equal, that their positions are equal. That one leader will be so brilliant that the other falls to his knees in contrition has nothing to do with it.

Can't Obama say he'll have face to face meetings with Raul, Hugo or Ami, but only after extensive diplomatic discussion, and only with some possibility of a successful conclusion? That's not what he says.

[Tribesman]

But that's my point...why does HE have to speak.
Because he has to , its the only way . Unless of course you want another 30years of low level shuttle diplomacy achieving little and weakening both America and Israel .

[Beirut]

But that's my point...why does HE have to speak.

Why on Earth not? He's the president. He's neither too royal to get off his plump bumb pillow nor so stupid that he lacks the capability of speech. He is the person elected to represent the interests of the American people, so there's nothing wrong with him getting out of his chair and starting with the representing.

If 51%(?) of the American people vote for a president who cannot survive a one-hour conversation with the leader of Iran, I have little hope for the fate of your country.

[Crazed Rabbit]

Now, I know you have a more nuanced understanding of politics than that, even accepting the lens of your dislike for Senator Obama.

Almost every statesman of note has done exactly what you dismiss in this post. When talking with dictatorships in private conference, very blunt words are often exchanged and the recipient left in no doubt as to the likely repercussions of a policy.

That's what I said would be better. But my point is that Obama might not speak those blunt words. Would he be supportive of Israel as he claims he is? Or would he equivocate like Kennedy with the Berlin wall?

Or maybe he'd just tell them that military options are off the table, so the worst we'd do would be to give them stern looks and sanctions.



Well you can make that statement Rabbit ...but the earlier one was pure bollox wasn't it since there are plenty of legitimate grievances

:dizzy2: No, amazingly it wasn't. I don't know what you mean by legitimate grievances, but I was talking about the 'whacked out' statements by the Iranians.

CR

[Tribesman]

Or maybe he'd just tell them that military options are off the table, so the worst we'd do would be to give them stern looks and sanctions.

Since your allis have already said that military options are off the table and your own military know that military options are not viable what can you do apart from give them stern looks and sanctions ?
Do you think the Iranians are so dumb they don't know what is obvious to nearly everyone ?


No, amazingly it wasn't. I don't know what you mean by legitimate grievances, but I was talking about the 'whacked out' statements by the Iranians.

Well it isn't hard to figure out the dozens of legitimate grievances unless you have a mental block on the topic , but go ahead give some of those 'whacked out' statements and we shall see if we can match them to loony tunes statements from Americans :yes:

[KukriKhan]

Why on Earth not? He's the president. He's neither too royal to get off his plump bumb pillow nor so stupid that he lacks the capability of speech. He is the person elected to represent the interests of the American people, so there's nothing wrong with him getting out of his chair and starting with the representing.

If 51%(?) of the American people vote for a president who cannot survive a one-hour conversation with the leader of Iran, I have little hope for the fate of your country.

Beirut seizes on an important aspect there. When POTUS speaks, it must be understood that he speaks not just from the position of c-in-c of a formidable military force, or manager of an economic one, but also with the full force, confidence, and authority of the entire, committed american nation.

I'm not privy to GWB's thrust of discussion with foreign leaders (friendly and enemy), but judging by results, my guess is that he failed to impress them with that idea. Again judging by results, I'm not sure he himself ever entertained the notion.

The issue with Sen. Obama is: there's not much evidence to point to that he can deploy that diplomatic 'weapon' (or tool, if you like). Maybe he can pull that off. Maybe he can not. We don't know. We haven't seen him try yet.

All we have seen so far is his reaction to campaign attacks, which frankly, (to me) have looked more like semi-skilled parries than deeply convincing counter-thrusts. If he's gonna talk to "the enemy", with the goal of making them less enemy or non-enemy, I'd feel better about him being our leader if I were confident that he had a good chance of success in that task, having seen him pull it off beforehand, in some way.

Were he a prizefighter, I'd admit admiration of his ability to block punches. But can he go the full 12 rounds? And can he finally deliver the knockout, when necessary? Or will he merely seek a win-on-points, counting a 'draw' as a victory?

NB: I have only a tiny bit more confidence in HRC or Johnny Mac's abiliities in this area too.

On the domestic side, I'm not too worried. If he gets too crazy, we'll give him a Repub majority in Congress to either fix or ice any non-centrist policies.

[The Black Ship]

And if Obama achieves nothing, after bypassing diplomatic protocol, what then? You've used up your trump card, and achieved nothing.

In the case of Iran there's so much that needs to be tried before jumping to the end of options. Once you've failed with the final option the penultimate looks pathetic.

He doesn't even qualify his desires for executive talks...hell, it'd be hilarious if Ami refused to meet him:oops:

[PanzerJaeger]

Since your allis have already said that military options are off the table and your own military know that military options are not viable what can you do apart from give them stern looks and sanctions ?

I'm intrigued. Could you expand upon this?

[Tribesman]

I'm intrigued. Could you expand upon this?
Its a bit complicated Panzer .
At the moment your military is very stretched , it is also very exposed by being in bed with people who are tied more to Iran than they are tied as your "allies" .
Now it might be possible to risk all that and give it an attempt at some super duper high tech strike , but that would result in your already staggering economy falling straight through the floor(and that of the rest of the world) .
Which is why it isn't viable at all .

[PanzerJaeger]

Yes, yes. I understand that that is what you believe. I'm just wondering if anyone in the US military has stated that that is what the armed forces believe.

[Tribesman]

Yes, yes. I understand that that is what you believe. I'm just wondering if anyone in the US military has stated that that is what the armed forces believe.
yes , because they have stated that any effective action requires certain countries to play ball , and despite yet another recent attempt to get those countries on side they have once again said no way .:yes:

[Geoffrey S]

All we have seen so far is his reaction to campaign attacks, which frankly, (to me) have looked more like semi-skilled parries than deeply convincing counter-thrusts. If he's gonna talk to "the enemy", with the goal of making them less enemy or non-enemy, I'd feel better about him being our leader if I were confident that he had a good chance of success in that task, having seen him pull it off beforehand, in some way.

Were he a prizefighter, I'd admit admiration of his ability to block punches. But can he go the full 12 rounds? And can he finally deliver the knockout, when necessary? Or will he merely seek a win-on-points, counting a 'draw' as a victory?
Perhaps all that was visible were the semi-skilled parries. But as has been increasingly pointed out: Obama has been hooking up with people, somehow, and been raking in the campaign funds.

That implies to me that he is more skilled at the deeply convincing counter-thrusts than his public appearance would allow for, let alone how the media portrays him. Could be interesting, considering the (in my opinion valid) points Banquo's Ghost raises about the necessary diplomacy involving Middle Eastern leaders.

Though for real progress, I'd wager a face-to-face with with Khamenei would be more productive than with whichever glorified lighting conductor happens to be Iranian president at the time...

[Xiahou]

Then, in front of the press, each side claims to have "had full and frank discussions which form the basis of continuing dialogue."

What gets said to the wider world - usually anodyne - is posturing. This is most certainly true of Ahmadinejad who is invariably talking at a constituency at home, not to the USA.I think that begins to touch on why "unconditional" executive level talks are a bad idea. It strengthens the bad actor's hand. Ahmadinejad would be able to say 'I faced the American president, listened to his petty demands and told him where to stick them. I stood up to the American imperialists and faced down their president' yada yada. It'd be a wonderful PR tool for his regime. What a great way for Obama to make himself look like and idiot on the world's stage....

I think even Obama knows that his "unconditional" talks line from the long ago debate was a gaffe. His problem is that he since painted himself into a corner in trying to defend the comment. Now he's stuck trying to chip away at the idea without directly contradicting himself- ie: no preconditions, but "preparations".

[Banquo's Ghost]

I think that begins to touch on why "unconditional" executive level talks are a bad idea. It strengthens the bad actor's hand. Ahmadinejad would be able to say 'I faced the American president, listened to his petty demands and told him where to stick them. I stood up to the American imperialists and faced down their president' yada yada. It'd be a wonderful PR tool for his regime. What a great way for Obama to make himself look like and idiot on the world's stage....

I think you misunderstand the attitude of the world stage. Practically no-one outside a few hard-liners would consider an attempt to resolve the Iranian problem diplomatically to be idiotic - even if it ended in failure. Honestly, I don't know of a single constituency outside the US or the loonier fringe of Israel that wants war against Iran or considers it remotely possible.

The Iranian leadership will spin both talking and non-talking to their short-term advantage. The people of Iran (whose influence I know you dismiss) and the wider Middle East will not be fooled however, and it they who we wish to gain traction with.

And anyway, since when has an American president allowed the feeble mockery of another nation to sway them from a course he considers right? (We can but wish President G.W. Bush was such a sensitive flower and he might have been saved from appearing the biggest idiot of recent history).

[Goofball]

I think that begins to touch on why "unconditional" executive level talks are a bad idea. It strengthens the bad actor's hand. Ahmadinejad would be able to say 'I faced the American president, listened to his petty demands and told him where to stick them. I stood up to the American imperialists and faced down their president' yada yada. It'd be a wonderful PR tool for his regime. What a great way for Obama to make himself look like and idiot on the world's stage....

I think even Obama knows that his "unconditional" talks line from the long ago debate was a gaffe. His problem is that he since painted himself into a corner in trying to defend the comment. Now he's stuck trying to chip away at the idea without directly contradicting himself- ie: no preconditions, but "preparations".

It couldn't possibly look more idiotic than the current administration's policy of sticking their fingers in their ears, closing their eyes and yelling "AHHH-LA-LA-LA-LAH-I-CANNOT-HEAR-IRAN-AHHH-LA-LA-LA-LAH-I-AM-NOT-LISTENING-TO-IRAN..."

:beam:

[LittleGrizzly]

It is one of the things i greatly admired tony blair for, he was usually willing to go and talk to other world leaders to sort things out, foriegn policy was probably his greatest success and failure. His great success came from talking then talking and finally more talking. Would it have really been better for Britian had tony refused to talk to the IRA before they did a, b and c, or the way he tried of continous talks slowly getting the IRA to accpet things like decomission (right word ?) of thier weapons.

[PanzerJaeger]

Just out of curiosity, I'm trying to think of all the major meetings between leaders of Western democracies and their enemies in the 20th century and how those meetings turned out.

This is what I've got off the top of my head..

Successful: Reagan-Gorbachev

Unsuccessful: Chamberlain-Hitler, Truman-Stalin, Kennedy-Chruschev

Of course success is subjective, but that is how history has generally painted the exchanges. I'm sure there are more. Anyone?

[LittleGrizzly]

Those seem to be on a rather grander scale than current America-Iran diplomacy would be.... im unsure if Tony Blair - Sinn Fien fits the criteria ?

Didn't Kenedy avert the cuban missle crisis through talks (though not nessecarily meetings) with the soviets ? im guessing you refer to some other meeting/talks ?

Im unsure of the unsuccessful meeting you refer to between Truman and stalin, weren't they technically still on the same side at the time anyway ? (assuming you mean just at the end of WW2)

[seireikhaan]

Just out of curiosity, I'm trying to think of all the major meetings between leaders of Western democracies and their enemies in the 20th century and how those meetings turned out.

This is what I've got off the top of my head..

Successful: Reagan-Gorbachev

Unsuccessful: Chamberlain-Hitler, Truman-Stalin, Kennedy-Chruschev

Of course success is subjective, but that is how history has generally painted the exchanges. I'm sure there are more. Anyone?
Nixon-China?

[PanzerJaeger]

You may be right about the scale Grizzly.

About Truman-Stalin. At Potsdam, Truman's goal, from what I've read, was to get Stalin to abandon Eastern Europe and allow free elections there. Stalin, who later referred to Truman as "worthless", deferred to discussions, which led to more discussions, which led to even more discussions until the whole issue was put on hold until a further meeting - which never took place. By that time, the Iron Curtain was already firmly established.

That would be my worry about Obama. Once you enter into discussions, you can't very well take decisive action. Time is what Iran needs, and talks will give them plenty.


Nixon-China?

Can't believe I forgot that one. :2thumbsup:

[Tribesman]

What a great way for Obama to make himself look like and idiot on the world's stage....

Well I hate to break it to ya , but in the world of showbiz its always a bit hard to be better than the previous performer , its a real challenge , but something that they all try to attain .
Now myself I don't think Obama is up to it , he appears in the main to lack that quality . I don't doubt that he could give it a good try , I am sure if he really tried he could come close , but there is no way he could really do such a convincing performance as Bush when it comes to playing the complete braindead arsewipe:shrug:
Perhaps if he really tried and put a lot of effort into it he might make tht level , but somehow I doubt tht he has the drive that is neccesary to make him into a thoughroughly convincing idiot .
Its a shame really , what the worlds diminishing super power really needs is someone who is a more convincing idiot than the previous performer .

[LittleGrizzly]

About Truman-Stalin. At Potsdam, Truman's goal, from what I've read, was to get Stalin to abandon Eastern Europe and allow free elections there. Stalin, who later referred to Truman as "worthless", deferred to discussions, which led to more discussions, which led to even more discussions until the whole issue was put on hold until a further meeting - which never took place. By that time, the Iron Curtain was already firmly established.

I have read that there was some opinion in America that the allies should keep fighting after Germany and basically liberate the eastern european countries. Was there much popular support for this in the general population or the goverment ? Im thinking other than keep the war going the only choice was to ask Stalin to give up the new countrys