• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

The Amateur Diplomacy of Barack Hussein Obama

Mike

Well-known member
February 29, 2008
The danger of Obama's amateur diplomacy
Thomas Lifson
After suggesting that he would invade our ally Pakistan and talk to our enemy Iran, Barack Obama has moved on to potentially damage our relations with Canada, our friendly neighbor and number one foreign oil supplier.


Under the terms of NAFTA, Canada is prohibited from cutting off oil exports to the US if there is a worldwide shortage or supply disruption unless supplies are also rationed to Canadian consumers by the same amount.

After the Hillary/Obama debate, Canada's trade minister pointed out that if NAFTA is re-opened, Canada might want to opt out of this clause, which would then leave Canada free to sell its oil to any other country for whatever price it could get.

Both Clinton and Obama have made a big issue out President Bush's alleged insensitivies to other countries. And now these two geniuses are blithely talking about canceling a trade agreement with our two neighbors on which both their economies now depend.



The Financial Times reports:


Beijing has signalled its interest in Canada's growing oil sector. Two of China's biggest energy groups, China National Offshore Oil Co and Sinopec, have invested in small Calgary-based companies with ambitions to extract heavy crude oil from oilsands in Canada.


So the Obama campaign has been caught in a lie and is potentially opening a door for China (among others) to become involved in our most secure source for foreign oil, where the oil sands contain deposits equal to those of Saudi Arabia, while alienating our best friends in foreign countries.


Do we really want to let this man into the Oval Office?
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
But, after telling us he'd invade Pakistan, did he call over and tell them that it was just "campaign rhetoric"? How can you believe anything he says?
 

schnurrbart

Well-known member
Mike said:
February 29, 2008
The danger of Obama's amateur diplomacy
Thomas Lifson
After suggesting that he would invade our ally Pakistan and talk to our enemy Iran, Barack Obama has moved on to potentially damage our relations with Canada, our friendly neighbor and number one foreign oil supplier.


Under the terms of NAFTA, Canada is prohibited from cutting off oil exports to the US if there is a worldwide shortage or supply disruption unless supplies are also rationed to Canadian consumers by the same amount.

After the Hillary/Obama debate, Canada's trade minister pointed out that if NAFTA is re-opened, Canada might want to opt out of this clause, which would then leave Canada free to sell its oil to any other country for whatever price it could get.

Both Clinton and Obama have made a big issue out President Bush's alleged insensitivies to other countries. And now these two geniuses are blithely talking about canceling a trade agreement with our two neighbors on which both their economies now depend.



The Financial Times reports:


Beijing has signalled its interest in Canada's growing oil sector. Two of China's biggest energy groups, China National Offshore Oil Co and Sinopec, have invested in small Calgary-based companies with ambitions to extract heavy crude oil from oilsands in Canada.


So the Obama campaign has been caught in a lie and is potentially opening a door for China (among others) to become involved in our most secure source for foreign oil, where the oil sands contain deposits equal to those of Saudi Arabia, while alienating our best friends in foreign countries.


Do we really want to let this man into the Oval Office?

You don't comprehend much do you. They both said that they would want to RE-NEGOTIATE the terms of the agreement. Moshe Dayan once said (you do know who he is don't you?) that you cannot have peace if you never talk to your enemies and only talk to your friends. But I do realize that you pseudo war hawks love war, especially when someone else is doing the fighting. So I guess it is OK because you don't want peace.
 

Steve

Well-known member
Schnurrbart said:
Mike said:
February 29, 2008
The danger of Obama's amateur diplomacy
Thomas Lifson
After suggesting that he would invade our ally Pakistan and talk to our enemy Iran, Barack Obama has moved on to potentially damage our relations with Canada, our friendly neighbor and number one foreign oil supplier.


Under the terms of NAFTA, Canada is prohibited from cutting off oil exports to the US if there is a worldwide shortage or supply disruption unless supplies are also rationed to Canadian consumers by the same amount.

After the Hillary/Obama debate, Canada's trade minister pointed out that if NAFTA is re-opened, Canada might want to opt out of this clause, which would then leave Canada free to sell its oil to any other country for whatever price it could get.

Both Clinton and Obama have made a big issue out President Bush's alleged insensitivies to other countries. And now these two geniuses are blithely talking about canceling a trade agreement with our two neighbors on which both their economies now depend.



The Financial Times reports:


Beijing has signalled its interest in Canada's growing oil sector. Two of China's biggest energy groups, China National Offshore Oil Co and Sinopec, have invested in small Calgary-based companies with ambitions to extract heavy crude oil from oilsands in Canada.


So the Obama campaign has been caught in a lie and is potentially opening a door for China (among others) to become involved in our most secure source for foreign oil, where the oil sands contain deposits equal to those of Saudi Arabia, while alienating our best friends in foreign countries.


Do we really want to let this man into the Oval Office?

You don't comprehend much do you. They both said that they would want to RE-NEGOTIATE the terms of the agreement. Moshe Dayan once said (you do know who he is don't you?) that you cannot have peace if you never talk to your enemies and only talk to your friends. But I do realize that you pseudo war hawks love war, especially when someone else is doing the fighting. So I guess it is OK because you don't want peace.

You don't comprehend much do you.... the thread was about Nafta.. last I checked Canada and Mexico are still our friends.. not our enemies...

But if Liberals think it is okey to piss them off, and make them an Enemy just so Obama will talk to them nicely, instead of just dealing with Canada and Mexico in a fair and above board conversation to fix the problems with NAFTA.. then our country is in for a hell of a time trying to regain the world opinion liberal democrats claim to worry so much about..

BTW Schnurrbart is it okey to threaten your friends with a hammer?
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Looks like another Hillary "Karl Rove type" sleaze and innuendo method of campaigning got corrected......


Reuters
UPDATE 1-Canada defends Obama over NAFTA flap
03.03.08, 7:00 PM ET


By David Ljunggren

OTTAWA(Reuters) - Canada defended Democratic front-runner Barack Obama Monday over accusations from rival Hillary Clinton that he is secretly at ease with a hemispheric trade accord which he publicly blames for losing U.S. jobs.

Clinton's criticism, on the eve of make-or-break presidential nomination contests for her in Ohio and Texas, stemmed from a report by Canadian television station CTV that an Obama economic adviser told Canadian officials the candidate was not seriously considering disrupting the trade accord.

But the Canadian Embassy in Washington released a statement essentially backing up the Obama camp's version of the meeting between adviser Austan Goolsbee and officials at the Canadian consulate in Chicago.

"There was no intention to convey, in any way, that Senator Obama and his campaign team were taking a different position in public from views expressed in private, including about NAFTA," the embassy statement said. "We deeply regret any inference that may have been drawn to that effect."

The consulate's written report of the meeting had left the suggestion that Obama's words on NAFTA were designed for a political audience and should not be taken too seriously, prompting an angry denial from the Obama campaign.
http://www.forbes.com/reuters/feeds/reuters/2008/03/03/2008-03-04T000047Z_01_N03391783_RTRIDST_0_CANADA-OBAMA-UPDATE-1.html
 

Mike

Well-known member
The consulate's written report of the meeting had left the suggestion that Obama's words on NAFTA were designed for a political audience and should not be taken too seriously

Who's Roving who?
 

schnurrbart

Well-known member
Steve said:
Schnurrbart said:
Mike said:
February 29, 2008
The danger of Obama's amateur diplomacy
Thomas Lifson
After suggesting that he would invade our ally Pakistan and talk to our enemy Iran, Barack Obama has moved on to potentially damage our relations with Canada, our friendly neighbor and number one foreign oil supplier.


Under the terms of NAFTA, Canada is prohibited from cutting off oil exports to the US if there is a worldwide shortage or supply disruption unless supplies are also rationed to Canadian consumers by the same amount.

After the Hillary/Obama debate, Canada's trade minister pointed out that if NAFTA is re-opened, Canada might want to opt out of this clause, which would then leave Canada free to sell its oil to any other country for whatever price it could get.

Both Clinton and Obama have made a big issue out President Bush's alleged insensitivies to other countries. And now these two geniuses are blithely talking about canceling a trade agreement with our two neighbors on which both their economies now depend.



The Financial Times reports:


Beijing has signalled its interest in Canada's growing oil sector. Two of China's biggest energy groups, China National Offshore Oil Co and Sinopec, have invested in small Calgary-based companies with ambitions to extract heavy crude oil from oilsands in Canada.


So the Obama campaign has been caught in a lie and is potentially opening a door for China (among others) to become involved in our most secure source for foreign oil, where the oil sands contain deposits equal to those of Saudi Arabia, while alienating our best friends in foreign countries.


Do we really want to let this man into the Oval Office?

You don't comprehend much do you. They both said that they would want to RE-NEGOTIATE the terms of the agreement. Moshe Dayan once said (you do know who he is don't you?) that you cannot have peace if you never talk to your enemies and only talk to your friends. But I do realize that you pseudo war hawks love war, especially when someone else is doing the fighting. So I guess it is OK because you don't want peace.

You don't comprehend much do you.... the thread was about Nafta.. last I checked Canada and Mexico are still our friends.. not our enemies...

But if Liberals think it is okey to p*** them off, and make them an Enemy just so Obama will talk to them nicely, instead of just dealing with Canada and Mexico in a fair and above board conversation to fix the problems with NAFTA.. then our country is in for a hell of a time trying to regain the world opinion liberal democrats claim to worry so much about..

BTW Schnurrbart is it okey to threaten your friends with a hammer?

Afraid you went over my head with that last sentence. Sorry. As to the comprehension bit, in the VERY FIRST sentence of the original post (which you quoted) it says "TALK TO OUR ENEMY, IRAN" thus prompting my Dayan quote. That my friend is called reading comprehension.
You being a corporalist repub, you surely recognize the need to RE-NEGOTIATE CONTRACTS FROM TIME TO TIME ESPECIALLY IF IT ISN'T AS GOOD FOR YOU AS YOU FIRST THOUGHT. Still haven't figured out where the hammer bit comes from. Oh, wait! I think I just figured out what you were trying to say. Are you talking about "invading" Pakistan? Well, just to remind you of a little known fact, dumya stated the day after 911 that we will not stop in our quest to kill or capture the ones responsible for this tragedy NO MATTER WHERE THEY ARE. Obama just reiterated the same thing. He said that if he learned that they were in Pakistan and if Pakistan didn't do something about it, he would authorize a strike into that country or anyother country to kill them. He didn't say he would invade Pakistan to fight the Pakistanies. That is some more of that "reading comprehension" stuff my learned friend.
 

Mike

Well-known member
Still haven't figured out where the hammer bit comes from.


"Those criticisms have been particularly intense in the run-up to today’s primary in economically struggling Ohio. At last week’s debate in Cleveland, Obama and Clinton dueled to see who could be more anti-NAFTA; Obama won, at least rhetorically, by promising to “use the hammer of a potential opt-out as leverage” to renegotiate NAFTA on his own terms."
 

Faster horses

Well-known member
I just heard Mike McConnell on talk radio, he says NAFTA should be a non-issue with Ohio as he looked into it and Ohio exports 51 or 52% of its goods to Canda or Mexcio. The problem with Ohio is that they are very business-unfriendly. TAX, TAX, TAX.

And Texas has really hit the jackpot with Nafta.

Maybe I can find his website and copy/paste from it to here.
 

Hooks

Well-known member
Ohio is heavy union....They are complaining that its the JOBS that are getting exported to Mexico.........and yall are right, Ohio is not user-friendly in terms of business accomadations.......high utilities & taxes............
 

schnurrbart

Well-known member
Mike said:
Still haven't figured out where the hammer bit comes from.


"Those criticisms have been particularly intense in the run-up to today’s primary in economically struggling Ohio. At last week’s debate in Cleveland, Obama and Clinton dueled to see who could be more anti-NAFTA; Obama won, at least rhetorically, by promising to “use the hammer of a potential opt-out as leverage” to renegotiate NAFTA on his own terms."
If your "friend" has an unfair advantage over you, do you not try to find an equalizer to level the playing field? I should have known that you guys wouldn't be talking about invading a sovereign nation being wrong.
 

backhoeboogie

Well-known member
Faster horses said:
And Texas has really hit the jackpot with Nafta.

Please explain this FH. Everyone I know is worried about the superhighway. Its been fought plum over into East Texas now and they are crying about it.

Traffic is already a nightmare. We got folks swimming the Rio Grande that aren't half as bad as those swimming the Red River. We don't want either. But they keep coming and coming. Houses and stores and shops are springing up everywhere. Land prices are through the roof. More traffic lights every day.

How can anyone consider more of this a "jackpot?" I think I'd prefer a little recession. Maybe that would stop up the Red River crossings. Maybe the gas boom will hit somewhere else and they'll quit coming here.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
I'm a little slow, naive, and too trusting at times-as I once thought the NAFTA idea was a good one- but it didn't take me too long to figure out who the NAFTA ended up being written by and written for....

Besides the way the multinational Packers were able to take over the Canadian slaughter and feeding interests- allowing them to manipulate market prices on both sides the border--all it took is watching the US outlaw Canadian labeled sprays/chemicals (which could be purchased in Canada at hugely reduced prices) which had identical components, were made by the same Agri Chemical company, in the same factory- as the US brand name-- because that brand name hadn't been registered in the US :roll: -
Then the Canadians weren't allowed to order the generic cattle wormers (that were 1/5th the price if they came to the States and bought it) altho they contain the same ingredients as the original product being sold in Canada....The same with some Canadian cattle medicines- that were way cheaper if you bought it in Canada then the States- made by exactly the same companies in the same plants....

And it still continues as this current administration outlawed even border residents whose drug stores are closer in Canada, from going to and purchasing/or ordering from Canada prescription drugs that were made by the same Pharmaceutical company in the same laboratories (at sometimes 1/10th the cost)- calling them dangerous and untested... :roll: (But GW didn't mention his family interests/investments in the pharmaceutical industry) :wink:

ETC., ETC., ETC.....The best law the Big Corporate interests could buy......
 

Steve

Well-known member
Schnurrbart
If your "friend" has an unfair advantage over you, do you not try to find an equalizer to level the playing field?


Some friend you are.. using a hammer is not acceptable way to deal with friends..
 
Top