(05-14-2017 11:00 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(05-14-2017 09:41 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(05-14-2017 09:07 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(05-14-2017 06:45 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(05-14-2017 06:37 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Funny, but what I was talking about was the nice treatment of Russia and Iran and the bad treatment of Israel by Obama.

The nice treatment of Russia is a bad line - the sanctions imposed by Obama have done a lot to affect their economy. So much so that the whole Russia-Trump allegations ramped up significantly when accusations came flying that Flynn and the man pictured above were talking about lifting of said sanctions.

I just found it funny that a post recently complained about Obama treating friendly nations poorly (Israel) and non-friends well (Iran). I then saw a photo of Trump doing the exact same thing, just with different countries (Germany and Russia). I knew you were talking about Obama, I was making a joke.

I know you were being comedic - that's why I said "funny".

But it seems odd that you think sanctions imposed by a lame duck redefine the eight years of kowtowing to Russia and Iran.

http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/sta...ld-gift-r/

Crimea

Ukraine.

Syria

http://www.cnn.com/2016/12/23/politics/i...ttlements/

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnew...claim.html

https://www.wsj.com/articles/obama-wont-...1421950429

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/susa...-have-more

Iran nuclear deal

Ransom for hostages in Iran

I didn't refute your comments about Israel or Iran - you're 100% correct that Obama was less friendly to Israel than previous presidents, and did make the Iran nuclear deal go through.

But I don't see how he was overall friendly to Russia. Sure, he didn't put in the missile sites you reference, but what response to Crimea would you have preferred? Should Obama have started a war over it? He imposed the first round of sanctions in early 2014 (well before being a lame duck). Were you referencing the sanctions from the Russian hacking at the end of 2016?

But, let's say Obama was friendly to Russia and you are knocking him for that (at leas it sounds like you are). Then are you also concerned over the possibility that member of the Trump campaign colluded with members of Russia? Or what about all of the talk with Trump about trying to restore our relationship with Russia?

Re: Crimea ( and Ossetia, and Ukraine) - I think he should have taken a stronger stance. It is a false dichotomy to say the only choices were the matador move he made and all out war. If you keep giving in to the bully, the bully becomes bolder and more likely to play the bully again.

Yes, I am knocking him for his subservience to Russia - "tell Vladimir I can be more flexible" - what was it he could be more flexible about AFTER the election that would not play so well to the American public BEFORE the election?

And it's not just Russia and Iran, but the topic was enemies and friends, and I think Iran is our enemy, Israel is our friend, and Russia is an enemy we need to be our friend. Apparently Obama and Clinton thought so too, since in addition to accommodation after accommodation, they also wanted a "reset" with Russia. Now Trump wants to restore a relationship with Russia - shall we call that a reset? - and now that is a bad thing? We live in a world with Russia in it. We need to back them off a bit from running roughshod over us, but also to get their cooperation on various matters. A difficult tightrope to walk.

No, I am not much concerned that members of the Trump campaign "colluded" with Russia. To do what - get them to hack into the DNC and publish the truth? Putin didn't need to be "colluded" with - he had it in for Clinton. Apparently the most notable achievement she had as Secretary of State was to earn the undying enmity of the leader of one of the world's great powers.
.

So I'm confused - you knock Obama's original handling of Russia as being too nice and lenient, back when the aim was a reset? But now the current admins stated goal of improving the relationship is good?

What's the difference? Why was one bad a few years ago, but now the other is good? Or am I misunderstanding your stance?