|
9389. iiibbb - 10/9/2009 9:47:13 PM I like Obama, but if I were him I'd wave off the award. 9390. arkymalarky - 10/10/2009 12:16:04 AM I think he would seem very ingracious and would insult a lot of people around the world by refusing it. He's being appropriately humble so far. Give a great acceptance speech and move on quickly after that. 9391. judithathome - 10/10/2009 4:11:32 PM From a post on another forum:
Listening to some Europeans on the radio yesterday made this all make a LOT more sense to me. They love him for opening discussions with Iran, for his speech in Cairo, and for various other moves he's made toward working with the rest of the world like Kyoto and halting buildup of missiles along Russia's frontier. He's made the USA a citizen of the world again, and the world is happy about that.
9392. alistairconnor - 10/11/2009 11:17:32 AM My immediate reaction was like that of vK... wtff... but I'm thinking as an American there. Everyone I know (Europeans) thinks it's great.
There is a way he can merit it, and I wonder if it isn't already a done deal. It's the whole Iran-Russia-Israel clusterfuck. With the Polish missile screen as a side dish. The revelations about the Iranians' nuclear program, of Russian scientists' involvement, the cancellation of the missile program, Obama's supposed promise to Israel to resolve the Iranian issue... it adds up to a possibility that O has actually conducted a complex multilateral negotiation which has led to the apparent Iranian concessions about uranium enrichment, and that actually it will end up as a deal where they will verifiably renounce the bomb...
If it were so, then the Nobel would not be merely aspirational. 9393. judithathome - 10/11/2009 6:44:52 PM From a poster at RI:
managed to find this:
The Nobel Peace Prize for 2009
The Norwegian Nobel Committee has decided that the Nobel Peace Prize for 2009 is to be awarded to President Barack Obama for his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples. The Committee has attached special importance to Obama's vision of and work for a world without nuclear weapons.
Obama has as President created a new climate in international politics. Multilateral diplomacy has regained a central position, with emphasis on the role that the United Nations and other international institutions can play. Dialogue and negotiations are preferred as instruments for resolving even the most difficult international conflicts. The vision of a world free from nuclear arms has powerfully stimulated disarmament and arms control negotiations. Thanks to Obama's initiative, the USA is now playing a more constructive role in meeting the great climatic challenges the world is confronting. Democracy and human rights are to be strengthened.
Only very rarely has a person to the same extent as Obama captured the world's attention and given its people hope for a better future. His diplomacy is founded in the concept that those who are to lead the world must do so on the basis of values and attitudes that are shared by the majority of the world's population.
For 108 years, the Norwegian Nobel Committee has sought to stimulate precisely that international policy and those attitudes for which Obama is now the world's leading spokesman. The Committee endorses Obama's appeal that "Now is the time for all of us to take our share of responsibility for a global response to global challenges."
Oslo, October 9, 2009
9394. alistairconnor - 10/14/2009 12:26:49 PM Yeah. Still mostly aspirational. Still, it was the best choice, insofar as it strenghtens his hand, either internationally or domestically or both.
He's not merely getting the award because he's Not GWB (though that's not a bad reason). He's getting it because he's the Anti-GWB. This would probably be more visible if he had not ... succeeded his predecessor.
His vision is a radical break with everyone since at least Carter. And his mental framework and grasp of issues is much better than Carter's was. It remains to be seen whether the means at his disposal are adequate.
The other big test of his mettle will be the Copenhagen conference. If a decent accord comes out of it, it will be through American leadership. He can be the Man Who Saved The World.
Now just watch your fucking congress fuck it up. 9395. alistairConnor - 11/22/2009 12:25:29 PM Nobel, climate etc. continued...
Obama is going to Copenhagen all trussed up like a turkey.
But he seems at least open to the possibility of coming to the table with a tentative, provisional negotiating position...
President Barack Obama is considering setting a provisional target for cutting America's huge greenhouse gas emissions, removing the greatest single obstacle to a landmark global agreement to fight climate change.
That would be something, I suppose.
Though how much credit other world leaders will accord such a position, is something else. If they know anything of US politics, they will be confident that anything he promises will be watered down, dismemberered, and pork-barreled to an inch of its life. There is also the embarassing precedent of Kyoto signed, and never ratified.
Or how about this : the rest of the signs up to binding greenhouse gas reductions, and the biggest economic power gets a free ride for ten years or so while it gets its shit together?
Yeah, that'll work. 9396. alistairConnor - 11/26/2009 10:28:29 PM So, Obama has stuck his neck out and stated the US position for Copenhagen (which he will attend) : 17% reduction in greenhouse gases for 2020, 83% for 2050.
i.e. the terms of the Waxman bill that passed the House and got stuck in the Senate.
i.e. there'll be hell to pay if the Senate tells him to go fish.
The fundamental argument for the last decade of Republicans and Concerned centrists is that championed by Inhofe :
the Senate would never ratify a treaty that did not require strong emissions reductions from major developing countries. The U.S. Senate has made clear on numerous occasions that unilateral action by the United States is unacceptable, because it will harm our economy and have virtually no effect on climate change
This position rather falls to pieces if China, India, Brazil etc come to the table with substantial concessions.
Which they have. 9397. alistairconnor - 12/13/2009 8:51:27 PM US oil firms largely empty-handed in Iraq
It had been widely expected, ever since the intervention, that US firms would have a major share, perhaps the lion's share, in the Iraqi oil business.
It was even hypothesised, lest we forget, that this was one of the prime motivations for the war.
But there are two things to remember about the neocons. One, they are motivated by an evil ideology. But two, they are complete fuckups. 9398. Marc-Albert - 12/13/2009 11:12:44 PM It had been widely expected, ever since the intervention, that US firms would have a major share, perhaps the lion's share, in the Iraqi oil business.
I said, even before the intervention, that this argument was stupid. Iraq was never about oil. 9399. Marc-Albert - 12/13/2009 11:23:14 PM 
Amurcans taking over Iraqi oil?
...Iraqi officials have signed a deal with Britain's BP and China's CNPC to develop its Rumaila oilfield, a milestone in Iraq's efforts to renew its oil sector...
...Britain's Shell and Malaysian firm Petronas have been awarded a joint contract to exploit Iraq's giant Majnoon oil field, potentially worth $12bn...
...Italy's Eni SpA, with California's Occidental Petroleum and the Korea Gas Corp., was awarded Iraq's Zubair oil field with estimated reserves of 4.4 billion barrels...
...Japan's Nippon Corp., leading a consortium of Japanese companies including Inpex Corp. and JGC Corp., is at an advanced stage in talks to win the Nassiriyah oil field...
9400. Marc-Albert - 12/13/2009 11:34:44 PM
Amurcans taking over Iraqi oil?
Administrator Bremer Order No 39, section 6 :
Areas of Foreign Investment
1) Foreign investment may take place with respect to all economic sectors in Iraq, except that foreign direct and indirect ownership of the natural resources sector involving primary extraction and initial processing remains prohibited. 9401. wabbit - 12/13/2009 11:46:18 PM Way back in the early days, we were told that the war in Iraq would cost the US taxpayer little, that Iraqi oil money would be financing the occupation. On March 27, 2003, [Paul] Wolfowitz told a Congressional panel that oil revenue earned by Iraq alone would pay for Iraq's reconstruction after the Iraq war; he testified: "The oil revenues of that country could bring between $50 and $100 billion over the course of the next two or three years. Now, there are a lot of claims on that money, but ... We are dealing with a country that can really finance its own reconstruction and relatively soon." LOL! Those neocons sure could spin a good story. But if Obama has to raise taxes on the wealthy to start paying for this neocon crap, well, shame on him!9402. alistairConnor - 12/17/2009 10:03:39 PM So it's looking like it's all turned to shit at Copenhagen.
Any other outcome would have been something of a miracle. Poorly prepared by most participants, they came irreconcilable expectations and limited will to compromise. Numerous are the nations that are waiting for the US to make bold moves. The Americans want to make bold moves, but can only do so if other nations commit to verifiable reductions.
The Chinese know all this. And they appear completely intransigeant on this point: voluntary reductions only for the developing world (ie them), refusal of any international monitoring system to verify their emissions.
If they don't move on this by tomorrow, the show is over, not with a bang but with a whimper.
There are plenty of other major obstacles, but quite a lot of convergence, and no other absolute show-stopper like this one. I don't see how the Chinese can avoid coming out of this with the public perception that they killed Copenhagen. Sadly, that seems to be a price that they are willing to pay. 9403. alistairConnor - 12/18/2009 4:00:35 PM So, Obama's speech was a huuuuge disappointment to the inflated hopes of half of humanity... ouch.
On the other hand, straight afterwards he went into a huddle with the Chinese for an hour, and the early news is that there is substantial progress in the air...
9404. vonKreedon - 4/1/2010 6:39:12 PM Taking up the discussion in the American Politics thread about Israel, Netanyahu, and settlements. Marj, Arky, and AC seem to be arguing that the Netanyahu government seriously overstepped by authorizing the settlement building in East Jerusalem, that Obama gave him a harsh talking to in their meeting, and all this is likely to result in the fall of the Likud led government in favor of a Kadima government that will enforce a settlement freeze and so make peace possible. If I have this wrong please let me know the specifics of my error.
I offered polls that show that the Israeli people don't like the current government, but also don't actually want a settlement freeze. Further, while Kadima is leading Likud in voter preference, this not new. Kadima currently has more seats in the Knesset than Likud. However, the Likud coalition is based on the far right/religious parties for its formation and for its maintanance. I don't see the means for toppling the government without the assistance of these parties and the quickest way for Likud to lose these parties is by enforcing a settlement freeze.
I'm told to get my head out of my poll citing ass, but I'm not being offered any actual data to support a rosier picture of the Israeli position. I'm not claiming to be particularly well informed, so please do enlighten me on the data that I'm missing. But I'm afraid I can't take it on the faith that one can just tell that Obama has successfully chastened Netanyahu, I need actual changes in behavior/polling to be convinced that anything is actually changing. 9405. alistairConnor - 4/2/2010 4:23:56 PM Kree : Arithmetically, the Israeli government needs to control 61 seats in parliament, out of 120.
Likud has 27, Labor 13, the religious right 26. Total : 66. If any party defects, Netanyahu loses his majority.
So, Labor can bring him down. And agree to go back into government only with Kadima and without the religious right.
Nothing obscure about that.
Another scenario is that Netanyahu caves on the settlements, the religious right repudiate him and Kadima comes to the rescue.
Either way is OK by me.
The poll shows the Israeli public about evenly divided on settlements. Or to put it another way, deeply divided on settlements. I'd have to look at historical trends, but probably, support for new settlements is as weak as it's ever been. In such circumstances, a government is wrong whatever it decides.
If Netanyahu sticks to his guns and continues with the settlements, my guess is that he won't last long. I'd rather he went down in a hail of bullets, but I think he's wily enough to change course before that. 9406. vonKreedon - 4/2/2010 5:39:45 PM Labor can bring the government down, but looking at your math, Kadima, or anyone else, cannot form a government without the religious right and my understanding is that the religious right will not accept an actual settlement freeze making such a policy politically unachievable. Am I missing something? 9407. alistairConnor - 4/2/2010 11:26:48 PM Yes, you're missing basic arithmetic.
Kadima : 29
Likud : 28
Labor : 13
How many does that make? 9408. vonKreedon - 4/2/2010 11:53:07 PM But that assumes that each of those parties, Likud in particular, has any interest in entering a government that will actually stop the expansion of settlements. It appears that even Kadima, whose most prominent founder was Ariel Sharon, is not in favor of actually freezing the expansion of settlements, as this Jerusalem Post article indicates.
So yes, Kadima/Likud/Labor could form a government and leave the religious right out in the cold, but is that likely to have any actual impact on the expansion of settlements, both by "natural growth" in the West Bank and insertion of new blocks in East Jerusalem?
OTOH, you are right that I completely overlooked the possiblity that Kadima, Likud, and Labor could kiss and make up a new government.
|
