"I thought it would be easier"
-
CenterBHSFan
I was close! Not bad for going on pure memory XDptown_trojans_1;1850962 wrote:1. Close. Iran was never going to give up the ability to enrich uranium. Therefore, we had to put limit on it. They also did not want to sign the IAEA Additional Protocol and allow mine to enrichment verification. The deal does that. It also eliminated the heavy water facility at Arak and capped enrichment at 10%, so no high enrichment for them. Even after the 10 years is up, Iran is still bound by the IAEA Additional Protocol and the inspection regime.
2. The red line comment was bad, but then again, there are no good options in Syria. Trump is finding that out. (I'm still waiting for his ISIS plan....)
3. The reset gave us New START. New START is key as it allows us to verify and lower the limit on the Ruskies nukes. If there was no New START, the old treaty would have expired and we would have no limit and no ability to inspect the Russians. So, the reset, accomplished that.
It also allowed us to use overflight rights through the Russian airspace in Afghanistan, thereby eliminating the need to use Pakistan in some cases.
As far as Syria goes: I think it would have been best if Obama had not said anything at all, especially drawing red lines. That way, he would not have appeared as threatening consequences and nobody would have facepalmed after expected consequences didn't happen.
I don't know what my prescription would have been for that country. Sanctions don't do much. So what is left? Wipe out the government? If so, who then goes into place? I do, somehow, believe that we're not fully understanding of everything that is going on over there.
Russia: I personally wouldn't believe (or have any faith in) any dealings, propaganda or contracts that came from that country.
Iran: Will never be convinced of them, either. I think it was a bad, bad deal, regardless. -
dwccrew
Let me preface that I never voted for, or was a supporter of Obama. I don't disagree with you on your second point. Obama should not have made the "red-line" comment. However, that one bad decision to speak doesn't make him weak, overall, in my eyes.CenterBHSFan;1850895 wrote:1.) Iran deal. I think Ptown described this as (paraphrasing here, of course) "Iran was going to do what they wanted anyway, so we went along with it so that they could keep an eye on things."
2.) Obama drew the red line and Syria gave him the stink-eye and skipped right over that red line in a jolly fashion.
3.) The Russian Reset did nothing tangible of any historical importants. It was empty. The US was effectively hoodwinked with it. Putin and the Russians agreed, smiled for the camera and then went along with whatever business they were already in the process of doing. It was nothing to do. Seriously, the symbolic button Clinton gave the Russian FM a button with the wrong translation on it. Clinton didn't even want to do it. What does that say about the whole affair? If anybody, including President Obama, took Putin seriously, they were intellectual fools. Signed papers mean nothing - refer to Chamberlain for historical evidence.
In short, I would say that those countries acted in a manner that suited their interests (played the best game of charades of their collective lives) best because they had a good idea that there would be no serious consequences as long as he was in office.
Those are just the three biggest foreign policy issues that came immediately to my mind. Within those three it can definitely be said that he was walked on. I concede that you may or may not agree. But if you disagree with me, I invite you to tell me why.
Now, do you need links from opposing political viewpoints that show the very conclusion that I've said (perhaps in a much more polished manner) all found by doing a quick Google search or would you rather look up these events on your own?
It doesn't matter if you voted for Obama or not, liked him or not, honored him or not, whatever. He bumbled. He dropped the ball, whatever you want to call it. But he was no paragon of firmness. He had weaknesses and getting riled up that anybody, including me, points those out doesn't change that.
I didn't even get into his bumbling concerning domestic issues. That has all be hashed and rehashed in other threads and quite frankly doesn't even matter at this point. He's gone. Goodbye. Adios.
As P-town states in the quote below, Iran was going to do what they wanted, however, this only allows them to enrich to certain levels and also gives access for them to be watched. I am not sure what else you'd expect Obama, or anyone, to do in that situation outside of military intervention (which I am totally against).
And I again defer to ptown's point on Russia. What it allows the U.S. to do in terms of verification of nukes and aerospace rights outweigh any perceived weakness you seem to think it shows. I'm not sure how you think it's "empty". Again, you're projecting your personal dislike for Obama into his policies and deeming them weak, when in reality, had he not come to these terms in these two instances, the alternative would have been much worse. You haven't given any reasons as to demonstrate how this has negatively effected the U.S., only your personal opinion on how it has made Obama and the U.S. weak.
ptown_trojans_1;1850962 wrote:1. Close. Iran was never going to give up the ability to enrich uranium. Therefore, we had to put limit on it. They also did not want to sign the IAEA Additional Protocol and allow mine to enrichment verification. The deal does that. It also eliminated the heavy water facility at Arak and capped enrichment at 10%, so no high enrichment for them. Even after the 10 years is up, Iran is still bound by the IAEA Additional Protocol and the inspection regime.
2. The red line comment was bad, but then again, there are no good options in Syria. Trump is finding that out. (I'm still waiting for his ISIS plan....)
3. The reset gave us New START. New START is key as it allows us to verify and lower the limit on the Ruskies nukes. If there was no New START, the old treaty would have expired and we would have no limit and no ability to inspect the Russians. So, the reset, accomplished that.
It also allowed us to use overflight rights through the Russian airspace in Afghanistan, thereby eliminating the need to use Pakistan in some cases. -
ptown_trojans_1
Yeah, he should have not said anything. But, as for options, there are no good ones. The more you research it and know, the more fucked up it becomes. Latest example, we provide arms to the Syrian Kurds to fight ISIS, but in the process, piss the shit out of the Turks, which may lead them more to the Russian side. Even though they are a NATO ally.) It is a fucked up war, that really does not have any end in sight.CenterBHSFan;1850987 wrote:I was close! Not bad for going on pure memory XD
As far as Syria goes: I think it would have been best if Obama had not said anything at all, especially drawing red lines. That way, he would not have appeared as threatening consequences and nobody would have facepalmed after expected consequences didn't happen.
I don't know what my prescription would have been for that country. Sanctions don't do much. So what is left? Wipe out the government? If so, who then goes into place? I do, somehow, believe that we're not fully understanding of everything that is going on over there.
Russia: I personally wouldn't believe (or have any faith in) any dealings, propaganda or contracts that came from that country.
Iran: Will never be convinced of them, either. I think it was a bad, bad deal, regardless.
R: You cannot trust anything from them, but you can have onsite inspections and national technical means of verification from satellites and other means to ensure the Russians are not cheating on their limits. For example, there is a complex set of inspections that occur that ensure we know where every warhead and ICBM or mobile launcher is located. We can inspect the warheads with radiological devices to ensure there is no more than the allowed amount on a deployed system.
We also track their missile tests and deployments, along with satellite images and overflights to verify.
This all would have went away with START expiring in 2010, so the extension and New START kept the verification regime in place.
Iran: I know many people hear don't trust the IAEA, but bottom line, without the Iran deal, Iran would currently be free to enrich uranium at higher rates, have a plutonium reactor, and would not be subject to IAEA safeguards (verification from mine to centrifuge). Now, the enrichment is capped, no plutonium, and they are locked in to the IAEA Safeguards agreement and verification regime even once the deal expires. The IAEA Additional Protocol is a separate legally binding document.
So, sure, say it is a bad deal, but from a nuclear proliferation and IAEA perspective, it was a good one.