Yes there was one bright spot mixed in with all the suckups to tinpots.

He had a substansive conversation with our ally Colombian President Alvaro Uribe qnd came away with what I believe is a better understanding . Between having a power lunch meeting with him
Uribe's unplanned power lunch with Obama

,and listening to his sober comments compared to the lunacy of Ortega and the tin foil hat comments of the likes of Bolivia's Evo Morales, and Cristina Elisabet Fernandez de Kirchner of Argentina... Obama came away with a better understanding of the US relationship with Colombia.

The President did say that he would begin efforts to get the bilateral free trade agreement between our nations on the fast track of approval .US Trade Rep Ron Kirk said that “a resolution of the Colombia trade agreement would be a good thing for both economies”
CQ Politics | Free Trade Returns to the Table


Obama invited Uribe to the White House and promised to visit Colombia himself.The Colombian will demonstrate the economic and social progress they have made in the relatively free market policies they have had under Uribe .

In this case instead of extending a hand to a clenched fist ;Obama opened his closed hand to the extended hand of Uribe ,and for that he should be congratulated .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

Yes there was one bright spot mixed in with all the suckups to tinpots.

---

Hello tom:

I'm glad you brought it up, as I knew somebody would. It DOES point out the distinction between Obama's foreign policy and the dufus...

You guys think diplomacy is photo ops and rudeness. Obama thinks diplomacy is actually talking politely to people. I know you don't understand it, but you absolutely should get used to it.

Besides, diplomacy is trying to get your opponents to do something different. Requiring them to do something different BEFORE you talk to them, is stupid, self defeating, and EXACTLY what the dufus did.

Obama is NOT stupid.

excon

He got zippo from his grovelling of the Chavez cabal and will not.

There is a common interest with Colombia that has been carefully nurtured based on economic and political philosophy. There is no common interests in dealing with the terrorist supporting Marxist thug.

I suppose you thought the US should engage in full diplomacy with the apartheid South African government . I suppose you think we should meet with Mugabe now as equals . I don't .

It is hilarious . The same people who support his approach with our enemies would throw Israel under the bus in a nano-second.

I can give him kudos where deserved so kudos to the president on this. On the other hand, I though Bush was talking politely with Columbia and I believe Panama. As I understand there are free trade agreements with the two just sitting there waiting for Congress to vote on them, no?

As noble as it sounds to talk politely with our adversaries one has to be naïve (or silly as you like to say) to think people like Chavez and Ahmadinejad would use our "politeness" for anything but their own dictatorial ends.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

As noble as it sounds to talk politely with our adversaries one has to be naive (or silly as you like to say) to think people like Chavez and Ahmadinejad would use our "politeness" for anything but their own dictatorial ends.

---

Hello again, Steve:

It's not a matter of nobility (another word for lefty weakness), but a matter of effectiveness.

I could, after all, give up discussing ANYTHING with you guys. After all, I know you're hardened in your ways. But, you're not going to change a thing if I didn't politely engage you. In fact, I know that my "'diplomatic" efforts right here on this website HAVE produced positive results.

So, like me, I don't think Obama has any preconceived notions regarding the success or failure of his effort. I don't think, however, that being polite and wishing to engage them means that he doesn't understand them. I'm polite (sometimes). I definitely understand what you guys are about.

excon

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by excon

Hello again, Steve:

It's not a matter of nobility (another word for lefty weakness), but a matter of effectiveness.

I could, after all, give up discussing ANYTHING with you guys. After all, I know you're hardened in your ways. But, you're not going to change a thing if I didn't politely engage you. In fact, I know that my "'diplomatic" efforts right here on this website HAVE produced positive results.

---

Yeah, yeah, that's why I still talk to some hardcore leftists, too. The difference here is I believe when it comes down to it we're really on the same side. I have no interest in eradicating liberals as the Mahdi Hatter does Jews. I have no need to use liberals as pawns as Chavez does Americans.

And what gets me is Obama and the Dems know this game of playing from a position of strength. The insult is they don't mind playing the game that way against their own countrymen while playing their weakness to the world.

Ex I still have to ask you what your position was regarding apartheid South Africa . There was zero purpose in engagement with them . I see no purpose to anything but raw display of power in our dealings with Mugabe's Zimbabwe either . I don't know anyone who thinks having these friendly chit chats with the butchers running Sudan could have positive outcomes ;and we know already that friendly engagement with Kim Jong mentally Il is useless.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

And what gets me is Obama and the Dems know this game of playing from a position of strength. The insult is they don't mind playing the game that way against their own countrymen while playing their weakness to the world.

---

Hello again, Steve:

You make my point again. Our "strength" comes from our military being 600 times larger than Venezuela - not in snubbing its president.

You think admitting our mistakes is a sign of weakness. I think it's a sign of strength. The world is quite aware of our "big stick". We don't have to wave it around.

In fact, given that we are king sh*t, we should engage the world. What pipsqueak are we afraid of? NOT engaging them, and requiring them to make change BEFORE we speak to them, IS a sign of weakness, in my view.

excon

Did being "king sh*t" deter bin Laden? I think we should engage the world, but I don't think we have anything to apologize for and being "king sh*t" means little if the enemy doesn't believe you'll use that bigger hammer. This isn't a playground, ex, and appeasement is an idiotic, dangerous mistake.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

being "king sh*t" means little if the enemy doesn't believe you'll use that bigger hammer.

---

Hello again, Steve:

We don't disagree - except I didn't get the email saying Obama ISN'T going to use his hammer. I spose I'm not on that mailing list.

You, of course, discern his politeness to mean just that. I don't. I'm polite. I haven't come to Texas to slap the crap out of you - YET!

excon

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by excon

Hello again, Steve:

We don't disagree - except I didn't get the email saying Obama ISN'T going to use his hammer. I spose I'm not on that mailing list.

You, of course, discern his politeness to mean just that. I don't. I'm polite. I haven't come to Texas to slap the crap outta you - YET!

excon

---

Just remember, we're bitter Christians clinging to religion and our 'concealed' weapons. ;)

A waving big stick has proven to be a rather erratic approach,
And clearly has failed miserably.

A big stick diplomatically employed can be far more potent and effective.

firehorse

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by firehorse

a waving big stick has proven to be a rather erratic approach,
and clearly has failed miserably.

a big stick diplomatically employed can be far more potent and effective.

firehorse

---

"Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall." That seemed to work. It seemed to work for Libya. It seems to be working in Iraq - after 12 years of diplomatically "deploring" Saddam's evils didn't.

How are things with the UN's weak efforts in the Sudan, Somalia, Iran? How's that OIC thing working out? How are things with the UN's anti-racism conference featuring Ahmadinejad? Sitting people that have no regard for human rights in places of prominence and giving them credibility fails miserably.

A waving big stick has proven to be a rather erratic approach,
And clearly has failed miserably.

A big stick diplomatically employed can be far more potent and effective.

firehorse

Lol... this from the people who for years complained that the US had these relationships with some of the worse dictators on the planet.
The twin pillars of the US ME policy before 1979 was Saddam and the Shah of Iran. We maintained cozy relations with Marcos in the Philippines etc . The list went on and on . Back then divestment was the mantra of the left.

Now if a Democrat President gets cozy with a thug it is smart diplomacy. I get it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

lol.... this from the people who for years complained that the US had these relationships with some of the worse dictators on the planet.
The twin pillars of the US ME policy before 1979 was Saddam and the Shah of Iran. We maintained cozy relations with Marcos in the Phillipines etc . The list went on and on . Back then divestment was the mantra of the left.

Now if a Democrat President gets cozy with a thug it is smart diplomacy. I get it.

---

Exactly!

Who said anything about appeasement or getting
"cozy with a thug"?
.. or held up previous u.n. practices as successful, for that matter?

I refer to diplomatic employment of a big stick.

Our government, at no time, has had that kind of relationship with these countries, we have either been in bed with them or waving that stick erratically.

OK firehorse, I'll bite. Exactly how would you wave a big stick diplomatically?