Obama Makes Progress At UN On Iran And Nukes
In spite of right wing naysaying about President Obama’s first appearance as president at the opening of the UN General Assembly, it’s obvious that he made great gains there. He convinced Russia to consider tough new sanctions against Iran and got support from Moscow and Beijing for Security Council resolution to curb nuclear weapons.
The successes came as Mr. Obama told leaders that the United States intended to begin a new era of engagement with the world, in a sweeping address to the General Assembly in which he sought to clearly delineate differences between himself and the administration of President George W. Bush.
Reorienting our missile defense system seemed to help.
With a beaming Mr. Obama standing next to him, Mr. Medvedev signaled for the first time that Russia would be amenable to longstanding American requests to toughen sanctions against Iran significantly if, as expected, nuclear talks scheduled for next month failed to make progress.
The United States’ new tone in international relations is clearly accruing benefits.
“We have re-engaged the United Nations,” Mr. Obama said, to cheers from world leaders and delegates in the cavernous hall. “We have paid our bills” — a direct reference to the former administration’s practice of withholding some payment due the world body while it pressed for changes there.
I’m a big fan of the shift in foreign relations.
Our president is moving in a positive direction, a direction of cooperation around common ground goals and shared responsibility.
Big time changes from the previous bully tactics.
Keep up the good work mr. president.
karthiks030977 Reply:
September 24th, 2009 at 11:36 am
Same here: Obama is talking sense, all the time, on Foreign Policy.
Why would Israel want the status quo to be THE solution, when they know the Palestinians wont accept it as they are getting shafted by the status quo?
Its absolutely in the interest of Israel to do no-preconditions negotiations;And precluding that does THEM, our friends a disservice.
September 24th, 2009 at 11:28 am
This is where President Obama is just kicking butt and taking names. His foreign policy is just centuries ahead of Bush.
It’s like these two men came from different universes.
Rocky the Liberal Rottweiler Reply:
September 24th, 2009 at 12:39 pm
One lived in the past, Obama wants to secure a future.
EricG Reply:
September 25th, 2009 at 8:28 am
Yes, exactly. Bush was on this “the end is nigh” kind of thinking and the “push them into line” mentality and Obama is actually alive in the 2009 here in the United States with the rest of us.
September 24th, 2009 at 12:17 pm
If anybody doesn’t like this rhetoric I would like to remind them that this stance is what this man ran on and then got elected for by the majority the people.
libpatriot Reply:
September 25th, 2009 at 2:15 pm
Absolutely, Sisi! The people who claim that “Americans never voted for this” are always the ones who never voted for the Obama/Biden ticket, anyway.
September 24th, 2009 at 2:20 pm
“I told His Excellency Mr. President that we believe we need to help Iran to take a right decision,” Mr. Medvedev said, adding that “sanctions rarely lead to productive results, but in some cases, sanctions are inevitable.”
Can’t wait to see how THAT pans out. haha!
average james Reply:
September 24th, 2009 at 6:13 pm
AKA,
Maybe it won’t pan out.
Do you think it wise to try diplomacy before military action ?
Getting Russia, who has ties to Iran, on ours and the UN’s side, is that a bad thing ?
Is garnering world support in opposition to Iran’s nuclear program a bad thing ?
What is your point AKA ? I don’t get it.
jasperjava Reply:
September 25th, 2009 at 12:44 am
Republicans don’t believe in diplomacy. “Kill ‘em all, let God sort them out” is their motto. Bloodthirsty neanderthals.
Lib Patriot Reply:
September 24th, 2009 at 8:06 pm
AKA’s point seems to be that it’s foolish for us to try anything other than threats or bombing, AJ. Such things may be necessary in the end, of course, but it’s far easier to get our allies to stand with us when they can see we tried other avenues of response first. And having the wholehearted support of our allies in our actions makes us stronger in the end. But this kind of reasoning tends to go right over a neocon’s head.
September 24th, 2009 at 5:48 pm
Iran and North Korea will dupe Obama into believing they have abandoned their nuclear ambitions. He’ll swallow their bull hook, line and sinker. Just how naive this guy can be is unbelievable. Reality seems to escape him and his cohorts.
Lib Patriot Reply:
September 24th, 2009 at 8:01 pm
What, do you have a magic crystal ball for fortelling the future that none of the rest of us has?
jasperjava Reply:
September 25th, 2009 at 12:41 am
If you believe that, BSTNH1, then you’re the naïve one.
libpatriot Reply:
September 25th, 2009 at 12:28 pm
BSTNH1, as far as your prediction about President Obama and Iran, events of the past day have already proved you wrong.
September 24th, 2009 at 7:07 pm
What seems to be over looked here is that Russia in on Russia’s side. They will act in a manner that reflects their national self interest. I’ll leave it wise men/women than I to ponder what Russia may know that the US does NOT.
EricG Reply:
September 25th, 2009 at 8:31 am
You do know people in Russia are saying the same thing about us, right?
I mean I don’t really know that but it’s true in most cases that distrust and assumptions are shared. This is why we have to come to table and work together.
Otherwise we all sit at home and load our guns and wait for WWIII.
September 24th, 2009 at 8:11 pm
Russia will not put pressure on Iran to end it’s Nuclear ambitions. They have to much at stake in Iran. Plus, when has Russia or China ever kept their word. And we all know the history of deals with N. Korea.
N. Korea and China are states run by dictators and Russia is falling back to it’s Soviet totalitarian rule.
Just keep your eye on these guys. They can’t be trusted.
OldLefty Reply:
September 25th, 2009 at 8:14 am
So why did the free traders give away so much to China….they make our military weapons, and our tylenol, and cheap sweatshop labor.
It’s a capitalists dream!
Daddio Reply:
September 25th, 2009 at 8:24 am
It should be stopped. Where is Obama on China?
OldLefty Reply:
September 25th, 2009 at 8:32 am
Obama’s thinking on China seems to be. …. China neither enemy nor friend.
Because Obama is much more of a free marketer than the right wing admits, and because so much power has already been given to trans national corporations, we are not the power that we once were.
We have only to hope we a big enough market for China that they do not call in their debt.
The fruits of Laissez faire.
Daddio Reply:
September 25th, 2009 at 8:39 am
I will say that our government is one of the major reasons why our corporations have moved across our borders to foreign lands.
You consider the hostile environment caused by government on business with high taxation, epa regulations, tons of paperwork just to build a new plant along with environmental impact studies that take up to 7 to 15 years, frivolous lawsuits, the endangered species act, eco terrorist, tree huggers and the like.
But I will also say the allure of cheap labor and lax or no regulations by other governments is attractive to corporations also.
karthiks030977 Reply:
September 25th, 2009 at 8:44 am
“But I will also say the allure of cheap labor and lax or no regulations by other governments is attractive to corporations also.”
That is the compelling reason: The rest of what you said are muffled by this reason.
You dont have any evidence that your reasons are significant.
With the standards of evidence you used for your assertation, I can quite easily Prove that companies move abroad because of a.Weak Environmental regulations here plus b.Allure of cheap labor.
jazmine Reply:
September 25th, 2009 at 8:53 am
You guys are so Wrong. It’s the other way around. America OWES China. Ha! Why do you think China is a bit shaky in the knees. Over 30% of the US foreign debt is OWED to China and another 30% of the US, foreign debt is OWED to oil rich countries. Russia has reacquainted itself with Capitalism,so who are they going to go to, when they need capital? Not the States, but their friendly neighbor, China, that’s who.
OldLefty Reply:
September 25th, 2009 at 9:03 am
Unregulated greed with tariffs have caused our corporations to go overseas.
Why settle for mere hundreds of millions when oppressive regimes can provide you with sweatshop labor resulting in billions?
EricG Reply:
September 25th, 2009 at 8:35 am
So easy for you to say that, Daddio.
Do you want to pay double for all those things OL mentioned?
because that’s the result of stopping trade with China.
I imagine Obama is with most the left on China: we want to encourage them toward a more compassionate society.
And stopping trade is not an option, for pragmatic reasons more than anything else.
Daddio Reply:
September 25th, 2009 at 8:44 am
In a sense we are now paying double for all those things. Simply because of the fact of their very cheap labor costs. You don’t see the price reflecting their true labor costs.
We should not completely stop trade with China but it should be curtailed somewhat. Our market is flooded with junk made in China. Reminds me of how the Japanese flooded our markets in the 50’s and 60’s with the same junk. Although their junk didn’t poison our pets or kill or poison our children.
karthiks030977 Reply:
September 25th, 2009 at 8:44 am
“You don’t see the price reflecting their true labor costs”
What the heck do you mean by that? Do you realize you’re blabbering?
EricG Reply:
September 25th, 2009 at 8:55 am
No, goods from China are extremely cheap in both production and retail. What exactly is it that I “don’t see” here?
We outsourced all our jobs. And their “labor costs” are why we did that, because they kind of don’t have any of that.
This stuff makes me scratch my head … I thought the left & right actually agreed on this one point that job outsourcing is bad and Chinese products suck … maybe we don’t agree on anything after all.
Daddio Reply:
September 25th, 2009 at 9:00 am
I wonder how much GM will charge for an automobile that is made in China and sold in the US? GM has made mention of importing Chinese made vehicles.
Just asking.
Daddio Reply:
September 25th, 2009 at 9:00 am
Your last paragraph Eric. We do agree.
karthiks030977 Reply:
September 25th, 2009 at 9:01 am
“I thought the left & right actually agreed on this one point that job outsourcing is bad…”
Eric,Daddido: THat’s not true. Where do your free market principles suddenly vanish when it comes to this topic,Daddido?
“… and Chinese products suck”
Well,in ANY market, you get the value you pay for.
EricG Reply:
September 25th, 2009 at 8:51 am
“Russia will not put pressure on Iran to end it’s Nuclear ambitions”
Only Russia could ever do it. So if it’s going to happen at all they will be the ones getting it to happen.
Don’t throw our national security goals down the stairs so easily.
Let’s pray for a solution, instead of praying for a failure.
Daddio Reply:
September 25th, 2009 at 8:56 am
I agree that Russia is the only nation that could make it happen Eric.
I am not throwing our national security goals down the stairs. I think it is a good thing for Obama to try and get Russia to come to some common ground on Iran, especially. But Iran is a huge trading partner with Russia. Russia won’t want to endanger that position.
But, yes, we should pray for a solution and not failure. I agree.
September 25th, 2009 at 8:03 am
Well guys I have to go. Had a long hard night at work. I guess I should get a little shuteye.
You all have a great day. Catch ya later.
September 25th, 2009 at 9:06 am
http://www.thetrumpet.com/index.php?q=2460.1126.0.0
Nite all.
libpatriot Reply:
September 25th, 2009 at 11:20 am
Great link, Jaz. It’s a real concern that if China and the Mid-east countries call in our debt to them, we’re sunk! Mexico will then have an immigration problem with Americans, perhaps. The irony!
September 25th, 2009 at 9:08 am
Give me a break. Obama is being toyed with by Iran and they’re playing him for the fool he is. Iran will come out the winner because of this naive idiot we’ve got in the White House.
karthiks030977 Reply:
September 25th, 2009 at 4:54 pm
” the fool he is”
Well, if he were that foolish, surely 5% of the 54% who voted for him would have spotted that.
“naive idiot we’ve got in the White House”
When you call him a naive idiot, and he calls himself pragmatic, and he calls you a sabre-rattler, somehow he looks more convincing; Wonder why?
September 25th, 2009 at 4:50 pm