It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


My Criteria-Who Do You Trust Most With Their Finger On "The Button"

page: 1

log in


posted on Sep, 3 2012 @ 01:04 AM
When Al Gore almost made president, those who had the most to lose was never the general American populace, but the rogue terrorist nation. Few people doubt he would have shot (nuked) first, and then asked questions later. He possessed a character and a temperament that he didn't even seem to want to hide.

And even as an avowed conservative republican, I could always see the benefit of having a commander in chief who is not too easily bullied. Of course the opposite is possibly just as true. How easy is it to believe that president Palin would have ever marched off to war or sent the missiles on their way?

So there you have it. Romney. Obama. Which one would you prefer to have his finger permanently affixed to the nuclear trigger of the deadliest nation in the history of the world, 24 hours a day, for the next four years.....and why?

Looking forward to input.

posted on Sep, 3 2012 @ 01:16 AM
Obama has got us out of one war and is the process of getting us out of the second war he has tried to persuade Israel to not attack Iran and let sanctions and the CIA try to resolve the issue he has also tried to build a relationship with Russia via joint space missions and space cooperation. Seem to a have a level head but is a stone cold killer when it comes too our enemies IE terrorist.

Romney on the other hand seem to want war with iran and seem to hold a cold war resentment toward Russia also seem to be ruffling feather in China he seem a little to Gunho for war imo.

i like Ron Pauls foreign policy the best really.

posted on Sep, 3 2012 @ 01:26 AM
Seeing as how we would have joined Israel in a preemptive strike against if anyone besides Obama was in office. I can say that Obama has more control over hos actions much to the dislike of some war hungry people.

I don't agree with most of hos policies he has that going for him.

Then we have Romney whovows to prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear energy which less face it, if they want it they will obtain it. And vows to not reduce the "defense" budget is enough evidence for anyone with half a brain to realize how he plans on using most of his time as President.

Its pretty cut and dry.

posted on Sep, 3 2012 @ 02:16 AM
The president can't unilaterally make the decision to spontaneously nuke another country. As for who would be more likely to pull the trigger? That's a tough call; under Obama we've seen a great increase in drone strikes and he did deploy many more troops to both Aghanistan and Iraq before pulling out of Iraq. Furthermore, he hasn't been opposed to Israel striking Iran because he is opposed to war, but rather because it would be terrible for him to start a war in an election year.

Basically with Obama it comes down to personal gain. He appears to have a lack of interest for human life and basic human rights judging by his signing of the NDAA and his "Kill List."

As for Romney, it's a hard call to make; however, he is a business man and will naturally do what is best for business. Nuclear war is NOT good for business; good old fashioned war, however, can be.

With that being said, though, neither candidate will call for an unprovoked nuclear assault. If we are nuked, nuclear war becomes fair game. Otherwise, however, we have other means of fighting our opponents.

posted on Sep, 3 2012 @ 02:32 AM
reply to post by pez1975

Obama presents a little more complicated picture for me than for you. You may very well be right, though.

Obama has got us out of one war
My understanding is that the Iraq pullout ocurred when the agreement which Bush reached with Iraq expired. Obama tried to get the Iraqis to agree to a longer American presence, but when Iraq insisted that American soldiers be bound by Iraqi law, the deal fell apart. Oh, they sent Hillary and the rest of the diplomats to try to persuade Iraq, but it was no go. So, the President declared that the remaining combat troops weren't combat troops, but advisors, trainers, and support personnel. As far as I know that's still how it is.

I'm concerned with his willingness to fly drones into countries we don't have complaints with, in order to kill people. Some, at least as reported on ATS, may be terrorists, but more may be bystanders.

As I say, I can't figure him out. We've lost a lot of the support he created in the opening days of his Presidency, and I'm just not seeing anything trending positive.

posted on Sep, 3 2012 @ 03:26 AM
Surprisingly Obama's foreign policy has been one of the things I've respected most of his administration. His administration regulated the middle east, nailed Osama, changed the personel and strategies of our military for the better and backed down the North Koreans. Even Israel said they've never been more secure under Obama's Administration. Obama has shown himself to be a cool calculated leader when it comes to military intervention and how to use it's power.

Romney seems like just another Neo-Con retard without much foreign savvy or care who's looking to start fights with brown people while destroying the economy.

I'll take the guy with the good track record who's proven himself over the mormon Yosemite Sam.
edit on 3-9-2012 by PirateBandido because: (no reason given)

posted on Sep, 3 2012 @ 03:46 AM
Obama does not seem to enjoy beating the war drums. His foreign policy has been a huge breath of fresh air to the nation that spent 8 years mired in conflict thumbing it's nose at the international community. He does the job fairly well and has improved our standing with the rest of the world. The one thing Romney and the rest of the Republican Party have yet to demonstrate to me is why when it comes to international affairs why do they feel we must be waist deep in every conflict. We aren't the only nation on the face of the Earth capable of handling these things. What harm does it do to let Britain, France and Germany to handle some of these things?

There is a mile difference between being afraid to commit forces to a cause, and letting someone else carry the ball and backing them up. Romney's plan is to turn us into the ball hog no one wants to play with. We can not afford that. His plan would give us tax cuts and more unpaid for wars.

posted on Sep, 3 2012 @ 05:35 AM
reply to post by samstone11


It's not even about the nuclear for me, it's about the position of power itself. No man who holds such religious views and hateful opinions of others should be elected to office, they WILL be biased, and they WILL make decisions based on their own religious insanity.

The idea that this man might one day soon have his finger on the button is a terrifying prospect. But people should be just as scared about the party and this man holding ANY power over such a large group of people when they repeatedly use their religious beliefs as justification for their actions.

We've seen the same thing happening in other nations, where a minority group presides over a majority group and the people suffer through the religious insanity of their leaders. The same would potentially be happening in the USA if this man becomes POTUS.

posted on Sep, 3 2012 @ 05:49 AM
Finger on the button: Romney or Obama?

I'd have to say Obama, because although I have grown to regard him as a 'yes man' since being elected (merely extending many Bush-era policies despite his platform of 'change') his temperment does seem to convey one of much consideration and forethought; he doesn't seem prone to making rash decisions which is what I think is most important when involving any aspect of weapons of mass destruction.

I don't see that from Romney, myself. He seems quite determined and quick to judge, although I will admit that I make this statement with little knowledge of his actual politics regarding foreign policy. I'm basing this on what I have seen from his character.

posted on Sep, 3 2012 @ 07:55 PM
There should be no button to be pressed by any nuclear armed nation.

We understand the ramifications of nuclear war and not one puppet in charge is capable of acting responsibly.

Disarm the world of WMD’s and drones etc and if we must fight and kill each other to the annihilation of our species - then do it the old fashioned way and let the earth survive at least.


posted on Sep, 3 2012 @ 08:39 PM
Romney, and here's why-He will say and do anything to get elected. In this respect he's weaker than Obama. I personally think Romney is unlikely to attack anyone. He's unlikable, and he's rather self conscious about that. He lacks the swagger of Bush II. He may have the the neo-con hawk faction waiting in the wings, but he lacks any charisma to actually convince an already wounded populace to go to war. Obama has fluffy words in spades. If anyone can get the populace to go to war it's Obama. Is he going to do that? I don't know.

In short: Romney is too concerned trying to be everything to everyone to actually take a stand on anything. He'd spend his time conducting market research on his popularity post pressing the button and by the time he got around to it the war would be over anyway.

Back to lurking.
edit on 3-9-2012 by antonia because: opps

new topics

top topics


log in