It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Does Obama need a war of his own?

page: 1
1

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 25 2010 @ 12:44 PM
link   
I've often thought that armed conflicts, small wars etc were used to distract the populace from other things. Typically at the start of a conflict the presidents apprioval ratings going up and the longer it drags out the further down it drops. Obama is killing his party right now. People don't even want him campaigning for them. He's viewed as weak. He's screwed our country up and made America unamerican. He's going to have to start campaigning in another year. He won't win if he continues down this path. No sitting president presiding over a war during election time has EVER LOST AN ELECTION. Think about that.

Now if you look at history, when was W's approval at it's peak. 9/11 and during the 1st year and a half on the War on Terror(echo echo echo). But he got reelected. When was GWSR's the highest? Yup you guessed it. But unfortunately for him the war ended a year and a half prior to seeking reelection. Nixon, reelected. And his popularity was at its height during viet nam. FDR caught 4 terms as president, WW2. William McKinley presided over the Spanish american war. He was reelected b4 getting murdered. Same thing for Honest Abe. Civil War and a another term.

In addition, several presidents presided over wars, but did not seek reelection. The War of 1812 began after James Madison started his second term, and he chose not to run again in 1816. James Polk declared the U.S.-Mexican War (1846-1848), but declined a second term. Harry S. Truman got the country into the Korean War in 1950 but didn't run for reelection. John F. Kennedy started the U.S. involvement in Vietnam in 1961. This led to war under the administration of Lyndon Johnson, who did not run for reelection.

Interestingly, war hero Dwight D. Eisenhower's promise to get America out of Korea helped elect him president in 1952. Woodrow Wilson was also in the anti-war camp. World War I broke out in Europe in 1914, during Wilson's first term. He won reelection in 1916 with the Democratic campaign slogan, "He kept us out of war." But sadly, Wilson couldn't uphold the policy indefinitely, and German attacks forced him to ask Congress for a declaration of war in 1917.

Now I don't believe that there is any way short of war for Obama to catch a 2nd term. And it's gotta last until the election. I thought Iran was his answer, but the more I think about Iran the more I realize that they'd be decimated in short order. And with China and Russia taking up new sanctions against them I don't forsee anything of consequence for Obama there.

But Korea. Nuclear North Korea. Very nuclear and crazy as hell North korea. North Korea and their biggest trading partner China. Kim Jong Il is a great villan, a wonderful Joker to Obama's batman. I mean there is no way Obama wouldn't get support and command respect for taking on the worlds most unstable dictator. And a nuclear nation too. That's ballsy. We typically don't see armed conflict between 2 nations with real nuclear capability. So there is a good chance it will be drawn out because of the nuclear threat. And it could stretch out through the election.

I see it. North Korea torpedoing that ship has set in motion a sequence of events that is going to lead to Obama's reelection and devestation in SE ASIA. N Korea would have no choice but to use nuclear weapons, they won't have a chance otherwise. And they hope the threat of that would keep the US out of it. Kim Jong just has bad timing. Obama needs a war and N Korea has it.

Now North Korea's ballistic missle battery looks like this:

KN-1 – a short-range anti-ship cruise missile. Its range is estimated to be around 160 kilometers, and most probably it's an improved version of the Soviet Termit missile (NATO codename "Styx").
KN-2 Toksa – a short-range, solid-fueled, highly accurate mobile missile, modified copy of the Soviet OTR-21. Unknown number in service, apparently deployed either in the late 1990s or early 2000s.
Hwasong-5 – initial Scud modification. Road-mobile, liquid-fueled missile, with an estimated range of 330 km. It has been tested successfully. It is believed that North Korea has deployed some 150–200 such missiles on mobile launchers.
Hwasong-6 – later Scud modification. Similar to the Hwasong-5, yet with an increased range (550–700 km) and a smaller warhead (600–750 kg). Apparently this is the most widely deployed North Korean missile, with at least 400 missiles in use.
Nodong-1 – larger and more advanced Scud modification. Liquid-fueled, road-mobile missile with a 650 kg warhead. First production variants had inertial guidance, later variants featured GPS guidance, which improves CEP accuracy to 190–250 m.[50] Range is estimated to be between 1,300 and 1,600 km.
Nodong-2 – further improved variant of the Nodong-1, successfully tested in 2006. Range is estimated at about 2,000 km.
Taepodong-1 – two-stage Scud-derived missile. Has been tested with a satellite payload in 1998. The satellite failed, but the missile apparently flew without significant problems, therefore it is North Korea's longest-ranged operational missile with its 2,500 km maximum range. According to some analysts, the Taepodong-1 could have an intercontinental range of nearly 6,000 km with a third stage and a payload of less than 100 kg.

Taepodong-2 – North Korea's domestic ICBM attempt. First test occurred in 2006, when the missile failed 40 seconds after launch. On April 5, 2009, a space booster variant was launched with a satellite on board. As with in 1998, the satellite itself failed to reach orbit, but the missile flew several thousand kilometers before falling in the Pacific Ocean. Estimates of the range vary widely – from 4,500 to 10,000 kilometers (most estimates put the range at about 6,700 km).

Now the scary thing about North Korea is who it supplies Missles to and who it recieves assistance from. Cuba, Pakistan, Egypt, Ethiopia, IRAN, LIBYA, Nigeria, Congo, Sudan, Syria, UAE, Vietnam and Yemen.

I could picture Iran, Pakistan, Libya, Yemen and Syria getting involved. And the possibility of the conflict stretching into a 2nd term increases with the involvement of these nations, several of which would use the assault on N Korea as an excuse to attempt an extermination of Israel.

Now as far as missle defense systems, our ground based missle defense can intercept and destroy limited ICBM assaults. We also have airborn capabilities with lasers and kinetic warheads. Israel has this air defense system as well. You have 3 kinds of Missle defense, Strategic, Theater and Tactical. Strategic is our ground based MDF. Theater would be our airborn systems and tactical would be like the Patriot systems.

Now in theory we could protect our troops and south korea from a north korean nuclear assault. By using the Active Layered Theater Ballistic Missle Defense System we could provide comprehensive protection from N Korea's short and medium ranged nuclear arsenal. They have limited long range capabilities so protection from those won't be an issue.

So Obama can engage in the 1st real nuclear conflict without much danger. And it would totally remanufacture his image. What do you guys think?




posted on May, 25 2010 @ 12:50 PM
link   
There would have to be some immediate threat to the US or a false flag or something. As it is any conflict with the Korea's will be their war and our intervention wont be very popular. Just like Vietnam and the first Korean War. If anything our involvement now would have even less popularity than the previous war because there isnt some communist beast threatening to take over the globe. It already has.

They would either have to make North Korea attack us or appear to attack us or boost up the "War on Terror" hype then tie NK into that somehow to get any sort of US support for action.

If Obama gets on board with invading NK as the current situation stands his popularity rating or lack thereof will drop another 20 points.



posted on May, 25 2010 @ 01:31 PM
link   
I would imagine this conversation is taking place in the White House currently. As for a way out, more blaming of W. After all he did proclaim North Korea as part of the Axis of Evil.

Some will be wise enough to see the "Blame Bush while continuing his policies." But there are plenty of MSM cheerleaders to play along to drown out the observant, just look at the effectiveness used on other issues like the bailouts.


Edit for clarity

[edit on 25-5-2010 by Ahabstar]



posted on May, 25 2010 @ 01:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by DrJay1975

... it would totally remanufacture his image.

What do you guys think?


I think another war would not only be a good idea I think it would benificial to the economy.

A war he could call his own.

Korea would be a good one to start because it has the potential to last a very long time. China, Russia and Iran could fund and support the North Koreans.

[edit on 25-5-2010 by Freedom or Death]



posted on May, 25 2010 @ 01:47 PM
link   
Wars have always been good for leaders, however a "war" does not necessarily have to involve armies firing at each other. One could initiate a "war" on poverty, a "war" on illiteracy, or any other social ill.

Perhaps Obama could initiate a different kind of war. A war that does not involve bombs or guns. Our country's economy is fundamentally weak and Obama needs to declare war on the weak fundamentals of our economy. When our country's economy is fundamentally strong, other social ills seem to dissipate. People with good jobs and economic prospects are less likely to commit crimes. Schools thrive when the economy is strong and tax revenues poor in.

When I speak of a fundamentally weak economy, I am not just talking about weak quantitative numbers like the GDP, unemployment rate, or Dow. I am also talking about quality. If the unemployment rate goes down this is not a sign of a strong economy if people are in low paying jobs. If the Dow goes back up to 14,000 this is not helpful if it went up because executives temporarily inflated their companies stock prices.

Obama needs to make this country fundamentally strong. He needs to make industry, not banking, this country's economic backbone again. He needs to cut trade deficits and budget deficits. He needs to make sure we have an educated workforce. He needs people to have GOOD jobs.



posted on May, 25 2010 @ 02:12 PM
link   
the title of this thread makes it sound like a war of american presidents is like a pyramid for egyptian pharaons , but maybe it is ...



posted on May, 25 2010 @ 02:17 PM
link   
The international political realities of a war with North Korea are quite interesting. First off I believe that with NK acting as the aggressor, that China would side with South Korea and the United States. Russia would stay home and watch from the sidelines without actually doing much and Iran is way too far away to matter as their force projection is not anywhere near far enough to come play.

Burma however would probably side with NK, that would get interesting. The realities of combat would be quite different too. This is what we would refer to more as "Classic Warfare" two massive armies pitched against eachother, a real front line and fanatical brainwashed soldiers.

This is the kind of war the United States has been thinking about how to fight since Vietnam.

As for the order of battle, again this would be very different:

Air superiority would be attained by the Allies within the opening days. The best air-superiority fighters NK has are early-model MiG29s and late-model MiG21s. These are not horrible planes by any stretch, but they are vastly inferior to American F22s and late-model F15s. If Japan also helps with the air war, their Viper Zero fighters will mince the NK's best as well.

The ground war will be harder, but with amphibious landings, constant air bombardment and an incredibly mobile American/Korean and possibly even Chinese force to deal with the NK Army, which is poorly supplied and only averagely trained, will fall within months not years.



posted on May, 25 2010 @ 02:19 PM
link   
Obama doesn't need a *War* to "re-manufacture his image" he has the perfect issue to run with...

Border Security.

Decisions and actions he take regarding this issue could propel him into next term, or not...



posted on May, 25 2010 @ 04:42 PM
link   
I don't think Obama necessarily needs another war. If he wants his approval ratings to jump, he should start taking more troops out of Iraq. I know we will never leave the country, but if he could drastically reduce the number of troops while the mainstream media makes him look like a hero, his numbers would skyrocket.

He could then continue the occupation of Afghanistan and the drone airstrikes in Pakistan with no repercussions. The public does not care about Afghanistan and the CIA could continue their covert actions in the middle east with no trouble.

Whatever happens, it all pisses me off.



posted on May, 26 2010 @ 09:56 AM
link   
Iraq and Afghanistan have lost their luster as far as conflict. They are a political albatross. He needs something of his own. The simple fact is no sitting president than ran for reelection during an actual war has ever lost. He knows that, hell everyone does.

The border, poverty etc.... He's trying to find something before engaging in a massive conflict. He's fishing. I don't think securing the border will get him the support he needs. I think his methods to combat poverty will push him even further down the socialist path. It won't help.

Kim Jong Il. The Joker to Obama's Batman. Everyone knows Il is a nutcase and a threat. If it doesn't turn out to be popular he can blame the Bush's relationship with NK as forcing his hand. It's a win win for him. Even if the war itself isn't popular it would remanufacture his image.



new topics

top topics



 
1

log in

join