PDA

View Full Version : Why will Obama not meet with the new NATO Chief?



genglandoh
03-25-2015, 09:33 AM
I do not understand why Obama will not find the time to meet with the new NATO Chief during his visit to Washington.

Obama refuses to meet NATO chief during Washington trip despite Russia tensions
Defence officials are scratching their heads after it was confirmed that US President Barack Obama would not meet NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg during his visit to Washington.
Bloomberg reports that Obama will break with tradition by not meeting the NATO chief during his first official visit to the US capital as head of the alliance.
http://uatoday.tv/politics/obama-refuses-to-meet-nato-chief-during-washington-trip-despite-russia-tensions-417486.html

LeeG
03-25-2015, 09:55 AM
Let us know when you get the answer.

slug
03-25-2015, 09:58 AM
The Nato treaty requires all members to commit to a certian level of defense spending. I think its two percent. Very few Nato memeber fulfill thier obligation. Recently the US made a plea for nato members to respect the treaty.

perhaps Obama is reminding the Europeans that the US would like to reduce spending and it would like to see Europe increase spending

obama might be making a good move.

http://s7.postimg.org/tojq185yj/image.jpg (http://postimg.org/image/4iirue4o7/full/)
subir imagenes (http://postimage.org/index.php?lang=spanish)

Gerarddm
03-25-2015, 10:20 AM
Is the new SecDef Ash Carter meeting with him?

Paul Pless
03-25-2015, 10:29 AM
Let us know when you get the answer.thread killer

LeeG
03-25-2015, 10:38 AM
I'm waiting for his Yemen thread and how it's Obama's fault.

David G
03-25-2015, 10:43 AM
You'll note the usual Embedded Presupposition in the thread title.

Flying Orca
03-25-2015, 10:48 AM
You'll note the usual Embedded Presupposition in the thread title.

They're easy to spot, because Graham only has two presuppositions:

1) If Obama didn't do it, he should have; and

2) If Obama did do it, he shouldn't have.

ljb5
03-25-2015, 11:15 AM
What would be the point of such a meeting?

"Hi, I'm Barack."

"Hi, I'm Jens."

"Nice to meet you."

"I'm glad we met."

"Smile for the camera."

Republicans really seem to crave these superficial displays.

Ian McColgin
03-25-2015, 11:19 AM
We see hawks pushing the point that this is a snub to advance their war with someone - if not Iran, how about Russia. What matters is for the NATO allies, most critically USA, Britian, Germany and France, to agree on a strategy. A chat with NATO's top hired hand is only a photo op since that job is to execute the strategy, not to create it. This week he's doing exactly his job meeting with DoD officials.

BrianY
03-25-2015, 11:32 AM
The answer is obvious - It's because Obama is no good at his job and hates America.

In fact, that's pretty much the answer to any question concerning Obama that genglanoh posts

genglandoh
03-25-2015, 11:38 AM
We see hawks pushing the point that this is a snub to advance their war with someone - if not Iran, how about Russia. What matters is for the NATO allies, most critically USA, Britian, Germany and France, to agree on a strategy. A chat with NATO's top hired hand is only a photo op since that job is to execute the strategy, not to create it. This week he's doing exactly his job meeting with DoD officials.

Russia is threatening Europe so you would think Obama would want to have a meeting with the new NATO chief.

Cuyahoga Chuck
03-25-2015, 11:39 AM
i agree, geng. that obama guy is a baaaaad man! we need somebody like ted crooooze. he will make all our dreams come true and we won't have to pay taxes no more. keep up the good work!

Paul Pless
03-25-2015, 11:39 AM
What would be the point of such a meeting?

"Hi, I'm Barack."

"Hi, I'm Jens."

"Nice to meet you."

"I'm glad we met."

rofl

ljb5
03-25-2015, 11:46 AM
Russia is threatening Europe so you would think Obama would want to have a meeting with the new NATO chief.

Or, perhaps this is a way of demonstrating that the US isn't at all concerned about Russia's 'threats' to Europe, for truly, we are not.

It's the "don't feed the trolls" theory of international diplomacy.

Putin wants attention and Obama isn't giving it to him.

Rum_Pirate
03-25-2015, 12:04 PM
What would be the point of such a meeting?

"Hi, I'm Barack."

"Hi, I'm Jens."

"Nice to meet you."

"I'm glad we met."

"Smile for the camera."

Republicans really seem to crave these superficial displays.


Cruz "Have you got a pen at the White House?'

Obama "Why yes. Yes I do have a pen at the White House"

Cruz " Why don't you get back into it before you are missed".



NB An alleged conversation, entirely without any foundation or substantiation whatsoever.

LeeG
03-25-2015, 12:09 PM
Russia is threatening Europe so you would think Obama would want to have a meeting with the new NATO chief.

Let's see what Josh Rogin finds out!

bobbys
03-25-2015, 01:30 PM
What would be the point of such a meeting?

"Hi, I'm Barack."

"Hi, I'm Jens."

"Nice to meet you."

"I'm glad we met."

"Smile for the camera."

Republicans really seem to crave these superficial displays..

Yet Obama could not even manage being this civil to BIBI.

Steve McMahon
03-25-2015, 01:37 PM
.

Yet Obama could not even manage being this civil to BIBI.

A good strategic move. Shutting off some aid would be a next good move.

LeeG
03-25-2015, 01:38 PM
.

Yet Obama could not even manage being this civil to BIBI.

Nor should he. Netanyahu misrepresented Iraqs threat and continues to do so with Iran. His stunt with Boehner to undermine talks involving five other nations and advocacy for attacking Iran is a repeat of 2002. These actions done by Netanyahu have been criticized in Israel as threatening US/Israeli relation. Just because Netanyahu got fluffed by Republican legislators doesn't mean the president should as well.

TomF
03-25-2015, 01:55 PM
.

Yet Obama could not even manage being this civil to BIBI.Might it have something to do with Israel's reported spying on the US at the Iran nuke talks (http://www.wsj.com/articles/israel-spied-on-iran-talks-1427164201) and then sharing the information with Republicans to prompt them to block any possible agreement on Iran? Even though Israel denies the report (http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/25/world/middleeast/israel-denies-spying-on-iran-nuclear-talks.html), of course, their denial left open the weasel-hole that they'd actually spied on Iran (not the US), and then did the same odious thing (shared it with Obama's Republican opponents in Congress).

If this is true, it's only added more support for the view that the 47 Republican Senators who wrote their infamous letter may be liable for prosecution under the Logan Act.

Regardless of the Logan Act musings, this seems plenty of reason to not be civil with Bibi.

LeeG
03-25-2015, 02:01 PM
Then there was the special intel from Israel about Assads alleged use of chemical weapons, that turned out to be not so sure. You'd think after a trillion dollar fiasco in Iraq that advanced extremist AND Iranian influence in Iraq Republicans would want to reduce tensions not increase them.

LeeG
03-25-2015, 03:03 PM
Is the new SecDef Ash Carter meeting with him?

I think so

ljb5
03-25-2015, 03:12 PM
Yet Obama could not even manage being this civil to BIBI.

The President of the United States of America should not be compelled or obligated to meet with anyone he doesn't want to meet with.

Foreign leaders can't just show up on US soil and demand that the President give them an audience.

hanleyclifford
03-25-2015, 03:22 PM
I wonder if the Ukrainians would pony up 2%?:)

Glen Longino
03-25-2015, 03:39 PM
.

Yet Obama could not even manage being this civil to BIBI.

I know him fondly as "bibis"!:)

LeeG
03-25-2015, 04:00 PM
.

Yet Obama could not even manage being this civil to BIBI.

So Israel spies on Iran talks and gives that intel to Republicans to undermine the president and the multinational effort to reduce the chance of nuclear proliferation. Why the fock should Oboma be civil to Netanyahu?

David G
03-25-2015, 04:25 PM
So Israel spies on Iran talks and gives that intel to Republicans to undermine the president and the multinational effort to reduce the chance of nuclear proliferation. Why the fock should Oboma be civil to Netanyahu?


bbbbbbys... I believe that query is directed at you...

bobbys
03-25-2015, 04:29 PM
judging by the insane reaction this is just how our libs view our allies.

thank you libs!

htom
03-25-2015, 04:50 PM
At a guess, he (Obama) didn't want to hear what he feared he'd be told. This way, he can learn about it from the newspapers.

LeeG
03-25-2015, 04:53 PM
judging by the insane reaction this is just how our libs view our allies.

thank you libs!

in other words you really have no grasp of what is going on

skuthorp
03-25-2015, 05:06 PM
judging by the insane reaction this is just how our libs view our allies.

thank you libs!
Allies!! With friends like these who needs enemies!

David G
03-25-2015, 05:17 PM
So Israel spies on Iran talks and gives that intel to Republicans to undermine the president and the multinational effort to reduce the chance of nuclear proliferation. Why the fock should Oboma be civil to Netanyahu?


bbbbbbys... I believe that query was directed at you. Do you have an answer?

Oyvind Snibsoer
03-25-2015, 05:20 PM
So Jens goes to Washington to attend a seminar and Obama doesn't have time to meet with him. They've met several times before and seem to be on quite good terms otherwise. Doesn't seem like much to fuzz about, but what do I know about the political etiquette of presidents and general secretaries.

OTOH, I did have the honor of hosting a luncheon for Jens when he visited Longyearbyen last year for the May 1st celebrations. I can attest that he is a very nice guy.

Peter Malcolm Jardine
03-25-2015, 06:10 PM
They're easy to spot, because Graham only has two presuppositions:

1) If Obama didn't do it, he should have; and

2) If Obama did do it, he shouldn't have.


All prefaced by a question mark don't forget.....

Peter Malcolm Jardine
03-25-2015, 06:13 PM
judging by the insane reaction this is just how our libs view our allies.

thank you libs!

Such a simple and refreshing view of global diplomacy and all of its facets.

genglandoh
03-25-2015, 06:17 PM
You'll note the usual Embedded Presupposition in the thread title.

I do not understand.
What did I say in the thread title that is not correct?

Jim Bow
03-25-2015, 06:34 PM
Oddly, Stoltenberg doesn't agree.http://www.dpa-international.com/news/international/sidebarhubbub-about-a-dc-snub-natohead-says-its-just-a-scheduling-glitch-a-44707950.html

Paul Pless
03-25-2015, 06:41 PM
Oddly, Stoltenberg doesn't agree.http://www.dpa-international.com/news/international/sidebarhubbub-about-a-dc-snub-natohead-says-its-just-a-scheduling-glitch-a-44707950.html

d'oh!

LeeG
03-25-2015, 07:46 PM
Oddly, Stoltenberg doesn't agree.http://www.dpa-international.com/news/international/sidebarhubbub-about-a-dc-snub-natohead-says-its-just-a-scheduling-glitch-a-44707950.html

OH COME ON! When Josh Rogin of Bloomberg Infotainment says he's been snubbed and the NATO chief says he wasn't who are you going to believe?!



"White House spokesman Josh Earnest said reports that the White House was not returning calls from Stoltenberg were "ridiculous" and pointed to a meeting between the NATO leader and Secretary of Defence Ashton Carter taking place this week."

David G
03-25-2015, 09:46 PM
I do not understand.
What did I say in the thread title that is not correct?

OK... let's start slow.

Do you understand what 'embedded' means? Can you see how a thought, proposition, insight, or assumption might be embedded in a thread title?

If you can answer this one correctly... we'll move on to step 2, then to step 3 where we tie it all together. Take your time. Consult your friends, if necessary...

ljb5
03-26-2015, 11:20 AM
By the way, I don't know if anyone really cares, but the new NATO Chief, Jens Stoltenberg used to be the Prime Minister of Norway.

In that capacity, Obama has met with him.
2011
http://www4.pictures.zimbio.com/gi/Jens+Stoltenberg+Obama+Meets+Norwiegan+Prime+8tJsA TgvuJHl.jpg

2014
http://www.ht.no/ntb/article10094906.ece/ALTERNATES/w980-default/high_szeb5398.jpg

2012
http://images.csmonitor.com/csm/2012/05/NATOChicago.jpg?alias=standard_600x400

2010
http://gfx.nrk.no//0buQiDO5uDslfJVvjZSbnAuFvcNUXqY_sjhtIr1JBvTQ

LeeG
03-26-2015, 06:32 PM
THAT was pre 3/26/15!

David G
03-26-2015, 09:37 PM
I do not understand.
What did I say in the thread title that is not correct?


OK... let's start slow.

Do you understand what 'embedded' means? Can you see how a thought, proposition, insight, or assumption might be embedded in a thread title?

If you can answer this one correctly... we'll move on to step 2, then to step 3 where we tie it all together. Take your time. Consult your friends, if necessary...

Are you ready to answer yet?

Glen Longino
03-26-2015, 09:47 PM
Are you ready to answer yet?

:)You know his answer will be in the form of another brainless question, don't you?;)

genglandoh
03-26-2015, 10:25 PM
Are you ready to answer yet?


You'll note the usual Embedded Presupposition in the thread title.

You made this statement about the thread title and I just asked you to explain.
But instead of supporting your statement you insult me.
It just shows that you cannot support you statement.

Lets review the title thread.
Fact Obama will not meet with the new NATO Chief.
All I did was repeat this fact and ask why.

I have to wonder why you spend so much time posting insults but not address the subject of the thread.

Glen Longino
03-26-2015, 10:36 PM
Once and for all, Geng, Obama will not meet with the new NATO chief because he does not want to, need to, or have to!
Get over it! You don't have to understand it! Just lump it and move along to your next cryptic and inane question.

David G
03-26-2015, 10:38 PM
I fail to see where you are being insulted. I've been perfectly civil. You asked me to explain... and I am attempting to do so. If you want the explanation... answer the question. I need to know if you're following. If you're not... we need to spend some time on the question before we can move on. If you don't want me to explain... why did you ask? This makes the third and last time I've posed the same query. Answer... or go away, I'm done putzing around with you.

ljb5
03-26-2015, 11:16 PM
Fact Obama will not meet with the new NATO Chief.

Will not ever?

Will not during this trip?

Will not on command?

Your language lacks specificity.

Obama has met with him in the past and will likely meet with him in the future. That seems to reduce your argument to the claim that Obama isn't meeting with him at the exact instant that you demand. That's silly.

===============================

It's also possible that your information is just plain wrong. Obama and Stoltenberg met in person just a few months ago. The White House reports they are in regular contact. Stoltenberg says there was no snub... and he's only in town for a few days and is already booked for a meeting with SecDef and another seminar with NATO.

wardd
03-27-2015, 12:48 AM
why wont obama meet with me?

Glen Longino
03-27-2015, 01:01 AM
why wont obama meet with me?

Cuz, yer no danged good, like me!:)
Howdy, Ward!:)
Remember when we were Laurel and Hardy? Hmm?:)

P.I. Stazzer-Newt
03-27-2015, 07:30 AM
why wont obama meet with me?

Cos he's too busy not meeting more important people to not meet you.

TomF
03-27-2015, 07:52 AM
why wont obama meet with me?Have you even offered him a beer, and the clicker to choose which basketball game to watch on the box?

Priorities, man.

genglandoh
03-27-2015, 11:03 AM
Lets review
1. The Russia Ukraine mess is still unstable.
2. Russia has about 12,000 troops in the Ukraine.
3. Russia is threatening NATO allies with warplanes.
4. The US is sending troops to Poland

With all this happening I would think Obama could find some time to meet with the new Chief of NATO.

Osborne Russell
03-27-2015, 11:07 AM
why wont obama meet with me?

He doesn't love me, and he doesn't love you.

Osborne Russell
03-27-2015, 11:13 AM
Lets review
1. The Russia Ukraine mess is still unstable.
2. Russia has about 12,000 troops in the Ukraine.
3. Russia is threatening NATO allies with warplanes.
4. The US is sending troops to Poland

With all this happening I would think Obama could find some time to meet with the new Chief of NATO.

Let's review:

1. There is a world outside the United States of America
2. If there is no specific reason for a meeting, then a meeting would be a waste of time made precious by the things you mention
3. There is no specific reason
4. Doesn't matter because Obama to you is a character in a psychological scenario whose lines and actions are already in the script, into which facts and reason cannot intrude

ljb5
03-27-2015, 11:25 AM
Lets review
1. The Russia Ukraine mess is still unstable.
2. Russia has about 12,000 troops in the Ukraine.
3. Russia is threatening NATO allies with warplanes.
4. The US is sending troops to Poland



1. The Russia Ukraine mess has been unstable for hundreds of years. A meeting between Obama and Stoltenberg would do nothing to stabilize the situation.
2. If Obama meets with Stoltenberg, Russia will still have about 12,000 troops in the Ukraine.
3. A meeting between Obama and Stoltenberg would do nothing to change the situation of Russia's warplanes.
4. The US sending troops to Poland is a pretty strong indicator that the US and NATO continue to communicate and work together.


With all this happening I would think Obama could find some time to meet with the new Chief of NATO.

I really don't understand your fascination with holding a meeting. Honestly, you sound like those stupid guys in upper management who have been promoted beyond their level of competence --- they have no idea how to get anything done, so they walk around saying, "We should have a meeting about this." Or better yet --- an off-site meeting. With catering. And maybe t-shirts. Dumb upper managers seem to like that sort of stuff.

You really seem to put an absurd amount of importance on the practice of "having a meeting."

Obama has met with Stoltenberg and will meet with him again. The US continues to work closely with NATO. What more could you want? What more could a sane person want?

Maybe Obama and Stoltenberg can do a ropes course and the trust fall and stuff like that. :rolleyes:

Cuyahoga Chuck
03-27-2015, 02:37 PM
Lets review
1. The Russia Ukraine mess is still unstable.
2. Russia has about 12,000 troops in the Ukraine.
3. Russia is threatening NATO allies with warplanes.
4. The US is sending troops to Poland

With all this happening I would think Obama could find some time to meet with the new Chief of NATO.

The fact that the two did not meet face to face does not preclude them exchanging messages by telephone, (land line, satellite, cell) e-mail, snail-mail, diplomatic pouch, etc., etc., etc.

Rum_Pirate
03-27-2015, 03:13 PM
The fact that the two did not meet face to face does not preclude them exchanging messages by telephone, (land line, satellite, cell) e-mail, snail-mail, diplomatic pouch, etc., etc., etc.


Alternatively, it could be seen as a snub. |;)

S.V. Airlie
03-27-2015, 03:15 PM
Alternatively, it could be seen as a snub. |;)That's your take! A snub is what 47 idiots did supposedly on behalf of the entire senate. That's a snub against the remaining senators and the president!

Rum_Pirate
03-27-2015, 03:34 PM
That's your take! A snub is what 47 idiots did supposedly on behalf of the entire senate. That's a snub against the remaining senators and the president!

'That's your take!' :ycool:

S.V. Airlie
03-27-2015, 03:35 PM
I suspect that 80% who know this happened would agree with MY TAKE too!

Rum_Pirate
03-27-2015, 03:48 PM
I suspect that 80% who know this happened would agree with MY TAKE too!


What do you suspect is the 'TAKE', of the percentage that know President Obama will not meet with the new NATO Chief? :rolleyes:

Or are you just plucking figures out of the air?

Cuyahoga Chuck
03-27-2015, 03:57 PM
Alternatively, it could be seen as a snub. |;)

Alternatively it could have been a diplomatic move to not antagonize Putin.

Your turn.

slug
03-27-2015, 05:25 PM
Alternatively it could have been a diplomatic move to not antagonize Putin.

Your turn.


Naw.......Russia and Putin are a pimple on a pigs ass. The issue is that Nato members are not ho honoring thier budget commitment to fund Nato.

American seaborn recon. aircraft are patrolling Europes southern borders to prevent illegal alliens from crossing the Mediteranean.

this is unacceptable.


http://s28.postimg.org/5mtthjrv1/image.jpg (http://postimg.org/image/npmw8rnpl/full/)
image hosting free (http://postimage.org/)

LeeG
03-27-2015, 06:38 PM
Lets review
1. The Russia Ukraine mess is still unstable.
2. Russia has about 12,000 troops in the Ukraine.
3. Russia is threatening NATO allies with warplanes.
4. The US is sending troops to Poland

With all this happening I would think Obama could find some time to meet with the new Chief of NATO.

Your thinker has profound problems so it's understandable you think this way.

S.V. Airlie
03-27-2015, 06:42 PM
What do you suspect is the 'TAKE', of the percentage that know President Obama will not meet with the new NATO Chief? :rolleyes:

Or are you just plucking figures out of the air?You've already plucked the feathers Rum.

Rum_Pirate
03-28-2015, 09:15 AM
You've already plucked the feathers Rum.

Now would you like me to skin and debone it? :ycool: