A REAL-Prez; On-The-Job....FINALLY!!

Mr. Shaman

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 27, 2007
Messages
7,829
"President Barack Obama on Friday opened his relationship with Chinese President Hu Jintao, promising cooperation in a phone call that broadly covered sensitive trade issues, the global financial crisis and the North Korean nuclear threat.

Among other topics, Hu and Obama discussed Iran, Afghanistan and Pakistan, counterterrorism, nuclear proliferation and climate change.

The White House said Obama thanked China for its leadership role in the so-called six-party talks, the effort aimed at ridding North Korea of its nuclear weaponry. It encompasses the U.S., North Korea, South Korea, Japan, Russia and China.

Hu told Obama that China is ready to strengthen dialogue and expand cooperation in facing challenges such as the global financial crisis, the official Xinhua News Agency reported Saturday. Hu added that he remains firmly opposed to trade protectionism.

The two leaders agreed to meet during the G20 summit slated for April in London, according to Xinhua."

Whew!! FINALLY, we DON'T have to worry-about what kind o' stupid-crap might come outta Our President's mouth!!!!!!

:cool:

"In terms of the economy, look, I inherited a recession, I am ending on a recession."—Washington, D.C., Jan. 12, 2009

:rolleyes:
 
Werbung:
You can tell the Pro-Business "conservatives" are GONE!!!!!!!!!!!!!

"....VPOUS Biden, who created the Violence Against Women Act, and Secretary Clinton, a champion for women in the workplace and an original co-sponsor of the bill, were in the room. President Obama entered with Ms. Ledbetter, and it's clear from reports that he is not only very much at ease, but taking this all in stride. Obama announced this morning that "we're going to start giving our pens to our co-sponsors." With the very last pen, President Obama stated, "This one, this one's for Lilly."http://taylormarsh.com/archives_view.php?id=29039

ALeqM5jNqs3LH5ALZYXlQbb-ZP82BnNtFQ
 
Just to point out:

The six-party talks have been a waste of time. They have been occurred for years now and have resulted in nothing other than a nuclear North Korea.

in 1994, the Clinton Administration refused to hold bilateral negotiations when North Korea broke the Agreed Framework.

Simply saying "we will focus on the six-party talks" changes nothing that is presently occurring. Bush has focused on those talks since 2003. (when North Korea pulled out of the NPT)

Anyway, it also shows the fundamental problem with American diplomacy in regards to North Korea. Our goal presently is to maintain six-party talks. What the real goal needs to be is to eliminate the North Korea nuclear program. The comments you quote from Obama indicate that this trend will continue.
 
Just to point out:

The six-party talks have been a waste of time. They have been occurred for years now and have resulted in nothing other than a nuclear North Korea.

in 1994, the Clinton Administration refused to hold bilateral negotiations when North Korea broke the Agreed Framework.
Gee....lemme guess....that's what "They say...", huh?

:rolleyes:

Lil' Dumbya ALWAYS insisted upon doing things "Any way BUT the Clinton Way!".....but, that's what he end-up doing!!!!

:p

"But then along came Jimmy. In June 1994, former President Carter went to North Korea to negotiate with Kim Il Sung, president of North Korea. These negotiations were a great success. North Korea committed to freezing its plutonium weapons program in exchange for two proliferation-resistant nuclear reactors and other aid. As President Carter explained:

Responding to a standing invitation from North Korean President Kim Il Sung and with the approval of President Bill Clinton, I went to Pyongyang and helped to secure an agreement that North Korea would cease its nuclear program at Yongbyon and permit I.A.E.A. inspectors to return to the site to assure that the spent fuel was not reprocessed. In return, the United States and our allies subsequently assured the North Koreans that there would be no nuclear threat to them, that a supply of fuel oil would be provided to replace the power lost by terminating the Yongbyon nuclear program and that two modern nuclear plants would also be provided, with their fuel supplies to be monitored by international inspectors." [Carter, "Engaging North Korea," The New York Times, October 27, 2002]

And, in spite of what the righties will tell you, the North Koreans kept this agreement. The plutonium processing at Yongbyon and elsewhere stopped, and IAEA inspectors were allowed back into North Korea. The plutonium processors were sealed with IAEA seals.

This doesn't mean all was peaches and cream with North Korea. Kim Il Sung died in July 1994 and was replaced by his dumber and nuttier son, Kim Jong Il. Head butting and game playing between North Korea and the IAEA continued. In 1998 there were rumors the North Koreans had broken the IAEA seals on the plutonium processors, but inspectors confirmed the seals were still in place."

*****​

"Again, notice the pattern -- the President trots out in public and struts about, talking tough for the home crowd. But according to this timeline, while in South Korea Bush expressed support for the Sunshine Policy, the same policy he had dissed in March 2001.

In March 2002, Bush refused to certify North Korea's compliance with the 1994 Agreed Framework, but said the U.S. would continue deliverying oil for energy to North Korea anyway.

For the first time since North Korea agreed to freeze its nuclear activities in exchange for foreign aid, the United States will refuse to certify that the country is complying with its commitments under the accord, a senior administration official said today.

But in what appeared to be an effort to forestall a diplomatic crisis with one of the countries that President Bush listed as part of the ''axis of evil,'' he will inform Congress that he has also decided to continue fulfilling America's obligations under the accord.

The official said Mr. Bush would waive, in the interest of national security, the certification of North Korean compliance that Congress now requires. That would enable the United States to continue providing North Korea with fuel oil under the agreement.

Mr. Bush's decision strikes a delicate political balance.

On the one hand, it may satisfy conservative critics of the agreement, who contend that while North Korea may have halted activity at its main nuclear site, at Yongbyon, the country may be continuing to develop nuclear weapons at hidden underground sites.

On the other hand, it enables the administration to avoid a breach with Japan and South Korea, which strongly support the 1994 accord with North Korea. That accord was initiated by the United States after a dangerous confrontation with North Korea in spring 1994 that Clinton administration officials now say came dangerously close to setting off a military conflict." [Judith Miller and David Sanger, "U.S. to Report North Korea Is Not Meeting A-Pact Terms," The New York Times, March 20, 2002]

Ya' know.....you need to do a much-better job o' pickin'-your-fights.

Do you have any idea how tiring it is, for me, kickin'-your-butt....time, after time, after time, after time, after time....... :rolleyes:
 
Gee....lemme guess....that's what "They say...", huh?

:rolleyes:

Lil' Dumbya ALWAYS insisted upon doing things "Any way BUT the Clinton Way!".....but, that's what he end-up doing!!!!

:p


Nothing that you wrote indicates that the six-party talks were effective. The purpose of the talks was to prevent North Korea from having a nuclear program... guess what? They already tested a bomb. Guess those talks worked out well didn't they?

So far, North Korea has broken every agreement they have made, and what have we done? We have offered them more stuff. What is their incentive to stop again? Oh, that is right, they don't have one.

Anyway, your post simply backs up the fact that the six-party talks where a failure. Why is continuing them now some great strategy?

This is really sad... your link wants to argue over whether North Korea broke a deal, or what the IAEA said, when they have already tested a bomb, defeating the entire purpose.


Ya' know.....you need to do a much-better job o' pickin'-your-fights.

Do you have any idea how tiring it is, for me, kickin'-your-butt....time, after time, after time, after time, after time....... :rolleyes:

Not quite sure what your fascination with my "butt" is, but you seem to fall right into the category of those advocating for talks over any meaningful progress or action. Exactly what I described in the previous post.

Let me guess, you would like to go to Iran and ensure that those IAEA seals are not broken, and would continue to make the case that they have no program after they test a bomb? Sad.

Another fact from the IAEA. After Libya announced they had a program and wanted to get rid of it, guess what the IAEA statement said? No joke here... it said "Libya does not have a program." Interesting.
 
Ya' know.....you need to do a much-better job o' pickin' your fights.

Do you have any idea how tiring it is, for me, kickin'-your-butt....time, after time, after time, after time, after time....... :rolleyes:

m'kay..........

WASHINGTON (AFP) - US President Barack Obama has set the stage for a possible trade war with China by branding the Asian giant a currency manipulator, a term his predecessor George W. Bush had skillfully avoided despite pressure from lawmakers.

"President Obama -- backed by the conclusions of a broad range of economists -- believes that China is manipulating its currency," his Treasury secretary-designate Timothy Geithner said Thursday in written testimony to senators quizzing him over his pending confirmation

...........this would have been another phone call then???? .......... or perhaps "take a message"
 
m'kay..........



...........this would have been another phone call then???? .......... or perhaps "take a message"

Exactly... it is no secret that China violates their WTO agreements and manipulates their currency to make their exports more attractive. Politically it is a blunder to make that a major issue however.
 
hey Rob this is the one I liked but didn't want to post in case it depressed Mr. Shaman too much....

These officials appear a little nervous about the arrival of a new US President, who might not be as friendly to China as President George W. Bush.

As an editorial in the state-run China Daily put it: "Given the popular American eagerness for a break from the Bush years, many wonder, or worry to be precise, whether the new president would ignore the hard-earned progress in bilateral ties."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/7841580.stm
 
Obama needs to fix the economy that he broke.


Barack Obama - We judge men by the color of their skin and not
their qualifications or chracter. - Roberty Reich 2009
 
Obama needs to fix the economy that he broke.


Barack Obama - We judge men by the color of their skin and not
their qualifications or chracter. - Roberty Reich 2009

Doesn’t seem fair to say he broke the economy unless you mean his party in general. but even with that the republicans have to get some blame.


But I agree with you he was judged by the color of his skin rather than the content of his character.
 
Doesn’t seem fair to say he broke the economy unless you mean his party in general. but even with that the republicans have to get some blame.


But I agree with you he was judged by the color of his skin rather than the content of his character.

It's more important to me that we realize the ideology broke the economy. The theory that government control and regulation will fix things, resulted in all our problems.

As to which specific person did the deed, that's a joke. Everyone in government is to blame for government meddling in things it had no business being in.

We need to dramatically move away from government being the source of our solutions. It's never solved anything, and never will.
 
We have been staring down the wrong end of the rifle with North Korea for a long time. Obama inherited this mess. Rattling sabres, BWB style, has not worked with North Korea. They have a few nukes, and can get them as far as Japan. Not good.

It's long past time to experiment and to see if there is any way out of this mess. It ain't blown up yet, boys, so Obama has not yet done anything any worse than his rather incompetent predessors, which would be a major achievement of total incompetence.
 
We have been staring down the wrong end of the rifle with North Korea for a long time. Obama inherited this mess. Rattling sabres, BWB style, has not worked with North Korea. They have a few nukes, and can get them as far as Japan. Not good.

It's long past time to experiment and to see if there is any way out of this mess. It ain't blown up yet, boys, so Obama has not yet done anything any worse than his rather incompetent predessors, which would be a major achievement of total incompetence.

The Treasury Department has done some pretty amazing things with isolating North Korea under the Bush Administration. They have effectively isolated North Korea from the entire world banking system and it has had a major impact.

The problem is that policy people have somehow decided that the six-party talks are the goal. The goal needs to be the elimination of the North Korean program.

On a side note, Treasury is trying the same strategy in regards to Iran, but with limited success. (for numerous reasons)
 
Werbung:
We have been staring down the wrong end of the rifle with North Korea for a long time. Obama inherited this mess. Rattling sabres, BWB style, has not worked with North Korea. They have a few nukes, and can get them as far as Japan. Not good.

It's long past time to experiment and to see if there is any way out of this mess. It ain't blown up yet, boys, so Obama has not yet done anything any worse than his rather incompetent predessors, which would be a major achievement of total incompetence.

But look at what you just said. You claim Bush was incompetent, yet Obama is following the exact same path. So which is it? Is Obama just as incompetent for doing the same as Bush? Or are they both brilliant?

You can't sit there and see two people doing the exact same thing, and claim one is brilliant and the other is an idiot, unless you are logically insane or a leftist.
 
Back
Top