Note: I'm putting this in Main because rather than just get an analysis of people's reactions to current events, I want to trace this back to the source and get some predictions, as well as discussion on what you think the next course of action should be for all parties involved. That said, let's begin.

2009: President Barack Obama meets with Russian President Vladimir Putin to discuss a nuclear arms treaty, cutting the reserves of both countries to 1/3 of their original levels. Obama obtains the peace prize for his efforts, and the guise of cooperation between the two nations, which started during the bush Era, continues to blossom.

2011: The Arab Spring - Citizens of several nations in the Middle East revolt against governing factions in the region, causing mass revolution and casualty. The United States extends military support.

2013, May - The NSA scandal begins with Edward Snowden releasing information of the United States spying on citizens and journalists.

2013, July - The US prosecutes Snowden, who flees to Russia. Vladimir Putin releases a statement that he will not release Snowden to US Marshals, due to Russian captives still residing within the US. Tensions escalate verbally between Russia and the US.

2013, Present Day - Violence in Syria reaches a critical level when the Syrian government is accused of using chemical weapons on its citizens. The US declares intent to attack the ruling party. Russia releases a statement that they will attack the United States if a preemptive strike occurs.

2013, September - the G20 Summit is to occur in Moscow, Russia, hosted by Vladimir Putin himself. Talks of Barack Obama not participating in the summit have occurred over the summer, with no finality.

---

I know I'm missing some stuff, but I want to start with this. Top discussion is the prevention of US-Russia military conflict, but second to that comes diplomatic conflict centered around the G20 Summit. I'll elaborate in the next post.

Alright, so...G20. For those who do not know, it is a meeting of the twenty most economically powerful nations on the planet: Australia, Canada, Saudi Arabia, the US, India, Russia, South Africa, Turkey, Argentina, Brazil, Mexico, France, Germany, Italy, the UK, China, Indonesia, Japan, and South Korea. The 20th slot goes to the EU itself, of which the UK still isn't a part of.

The intent is twofold. On one hand, it's a summit for regulating international commerce, trade and investment with economically weaker nations. As we leave the global recession of the past five years, the mission is to reform how currency is handled globally, as well as to select smart investments in nations of rapid development (as both the World Bank and the IMF can grant loans to other nations for the purpose of infrastructure).

(Also, it's St. Petersburg, not Moscow; a mistake in my prior post).

The second goal of the Summit is to bring world leaders together on a more private, 1:1 level. Leaders are free to have closed-door meetings at their leisure. For example, Barack Obama initially intended to meet with Japanese Minister Shinzo Abe to discuss North Korea and China.

Considering everything that's happened, is it still a good idea for the President of the US to attend G20 at all? What ramifications could occur in the eyes of the American people by going? What ramifications could occur in the eyes of the world by not going?

Erm you made a mistake the UK/England is a member of the EU "European Union" just that we didnt join in on the euro single monetary currency.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Member_state_of_the_European_Union

It wouldn't matter whether or not the president went to the G20 meeting. The U.S is still going to shit and all the president and the higher echelons of government care about is making sure when shit hits the fan they're in a secure bunker.

>4 Thank you for clearing that up for me. I'm not entirely versed on the EU so I didn't know.

>5 If that's how you feel about it, then draw up some dialogue of your own. Don't just say "We shouldn't care;" actually try to participate.

Ok, so let's say our president goes to G20. Great. Good for him another leisurely day of dick measuring with other nations. A few drinks with the other nation's leaders and effectively getting not a single thing done other than guzzling down expensive aged alcohol. Woop-de-fucking-doo.

Now on contrast what if he didn't attend? Well, the world would continue to rotate. Faux News would call him a terrorist/nazi/serial killer/rapist/child molester. CNN would dribble on themselves like the mentally retarded infants they are and MSNBC would continue to rake in massive profits. All the while the American people wouldn't really care that much.

I'm participating in a the best way I can, cynically.

is there any bad guys i could talk to

>>6

np, but there have been talks about having a referendum here in the UK if we should leave the EU, which may or may not happen.

hopefully some good things can come out of world leaders going to the G20.

>8
I'm a real bad guy. I once ripped the tag off a mattress.

>>10 Pft, that's nothing. one time someone sneezed and I didn't say bless you.

Well, let's say obama did go and that he did actually get some good information out of the japanese guy and he later meets with the russian guy. He will probably get some good info from the japanese dude and if he was smart write that stuff down and give to one of his secrete service guys so if that russian guy did anything he wasn't suppose to with obama we americans won't have to worry. Plus if he did go then it might help with our huge ass debt with china even if it might be just a little bit.

Now let's say he didn't go he would miss out on several opportunities to get some good info that could be beneficial to us. and who knows but the russian dude might have wanted to tell obama something he wouldn't be able to over "statements" given though public media

>>1 From what you've said, and from what little I've read elsewhere, it seems to me that the only way to prevent U.S.-Russia military conflict (assuming that Russia will in fact attack the U.S. if we attempt to intervene militarily in Syria) would be for the U.S. to not intervene militarily in Syria. I read an article that makes me very unsure of whether or not the U.S. will do so. Here's the link to it: http://www.stratfor.com/weekly/obamas-bluff?utm_source=freelist-f&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=20130827&utm_term=Gweekly&utm_content=readmore&elq=c8689739f06a41be992fdfa679a51e44. The article also highlights just how sticky a situation Syria has become.

On a related note, MKOLLER, did you happen to read or hear in what manner Russia stated it would attack the U.S. if we attempted to intervene militarily in Syria?

As far as the G20 Summit goes, I think it is very important that Obama go, more for the second goal of the summit that MKOLLER stated in >>2 than anything else. Considering what's happened in the past several months and how it's affected U.S.-Russia relations, as well as how the Arab Spring has affected the rest of the world, I think it's important for Obama to be able to meet one-on-one with leaders of our closely allied nations, as well as leaders of nations such as Russia, which can be more antagonistic towards the U.S.

I think this is important for a few reasons. First, it can help to establish (or continue) a general dialogue between leaders. Second, as MKOLLER stated, Obama wanted to meet with Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe to discuss North Korea and China. This summit gives him a good opportunity to do so. Third, it gives Obama a chance (another chance?) to talk with Vladimir Putin, and hopefully they would be able to, if not come up with some agreement/compromise regarding our two countries' tensions over Snowden and Syria, at least discuss those issues. Even if a particular discussion doesn't produce the results that people want it to, or think it should, it can provide a foundation on which to build in subsequent discussions. If nothing else, I think it's incredibly important that the U.S. try to maintain relations with other nations as best it can.

I think it would be incredibly childish if Obama didn't attend the summit because of the Snowden affair. I also think it would be incredibly foolish if he didn't attend, regardless of the reason, because of the huge opportunity to communicate with other nations' leaders he'd be passing up. Attendance at an event like this shows a leader's willingness to try to work with other nations and cooperate and be a part of the international community. Establishing such a rapport with other nations can only be beneficial to the U.S.

^

----

^

Due to how America and it's government reacts to minor political issues, I have a feeling that there's going to be some conflict if Putin decides to exclude Obama in the G20 meeting. They'll find of exaggerated excuse to cause a large conflict and tensions between America and Russia will rise over the roof. Example excuse: Putin is uniting nations against America using propaganda. That'll get shit stirring.

Personally I think it shouldn't matter whether or not Obama goes to the meeting. The world will continue to revolve and conflicts will still proceed around the world. But NOPE. The American government is self-entitled and stingy so it needs to stick it's nose into absolutely everything.

I find this whole situation quite... Dangerous ?