Having A Pushover President Has Now Become Extremely Dangerous.

page: 2
23
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Oct, 6 2012 @ 01:00 AM
link   
reply to post by TheOneElectric
 


I'm just asking how the rest of the world may be perceiving this.

As Americans, our culture may tell us we've got nothing to worry about because Obama probably just had an "off" night.
But why should we assume the rest of the world thinks like us?
That is no different than trying to impose ours views on the rest of the world, which normally results in us getting called "arrogant Americans".

I'm sure you know, every culture is different, and every culture will perceive this extremely weak performance by "the most powerful man in the world" quite differently.

My point is, some will see this as symbolic and may try to take advantage of a weak looking U.S President.
Think about it.

Besides, it's always better to expect the worst, but hope for the best.




posted on Oct, 6 2012 @ 01:02 AM
link   
reply to post by Hefficide
 


I don't know. Respect has to play, some part, because Ego does also. Its a thin line, when it comes down to it. I know this much, People walk over other people, regardless of title. Its the stronger, always walking over the little guy......





posted on Oct, 6 2012 @ 01:05 AM
link   
reply to post by Alxandro
 


How the international community views Obama has more to do with conversations between leaders than public debates. They all actually talk to him or his representatives, and are fully aware of the differences between statements to the electorate and statements behind closed doors.

reply to post by sonnny1
 


I actually disagree. I am voting for President primarily on international issues because I think domestic issues are influenced more by congress and the population at large. When it comes to affairs on the global stage, the executive has more proportional influence.

I agree more with Romney on domestic policy, but am more confident in Obama as a diplomat. Our domestic problems should be solved by a common cultural change and not a Presidential election.



posted on Oct, 6 2012 @ 01:05 AM
link   
reply to post by sonnny1
 


I agree. But let's say you're in a foul mood and you decide you want to pick a fight. So you go looking for a guy you just know you can take. You see a guy, maybe he's small... maybe he's looking sickly... and you think "target acquired".

Then you see he's got about a dozen huge friends sitting with him.

Do you still consider him a target?

If any foreign leader is considering military action based upon last nights debate, I'll just say "Ummm USMC dude. You might want to rethink "plan A"."

Or just say "Seal team 6"... that will make an entire nation wave and smile too.

~Heff



posted on Oct, 6 2012 @ 01:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by PatrickGarrow17
I think the odds are lower that war is avoided completely with Obama.


I don't think so....

When was the last time one of our Embassies was attacked and the ambassador was killed..

If Obama wins it will be a green light for Iran and Israel most likely see that too...it will get nasty over there.



posted on Oct, 6 2012 @ 01:07 AM
link   
The world respects our leaders,
as much as they respect our dollar now.



posted on Oct, 6 2012 @ 01:09 AM
link   
reply to post by Hefficide
 





Touche..



Then it all comes back to who waves the biggest stick.



posted on Oct, 6 2012 @ 01:10 AM
link   
reply to post by neo96
 


You could be right, Obama may be more of a hawk than I like to think. But I still perceive him as less aggressive than his opponent and predecessor.

Drones are a new thing, it's probable that under a Republican administration similar exercises would have happened and I doubt Libya would have been handled much differently.

Romney wants to increase military spending, while Obama wants to get out of wars and save.



posted on Oct, 6 2012 @ 01:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by PatrickGarrow17


I actually disagree. I am voting for President primarily on international issues because I think domestic issues are influenced more by congress and the population at large. When it comes to affairs on the global stage, the executive has more proportional influence.

I agree more with Romney on domestic policy, but am more confident in Obama as a diplomat. Our domestic problems should be solved by a common cultural change and not a Presidential election.



We disagree then.

Obama has big sway, as President at home, and abroad.



posted on Oct, 6 2012 @ 01:12 AM
link   
reply to post by Hefficide
 


That is if our military is in any shape after four years...

Towards the end of Clinton's administration our military was about as weak as it has ever been, and the world knew it...No country in their right mind would have attacked America in anyway after 2005, but it isn't 2005 anymore and Obama is heading in that direction...I going to predict if Obama wins we will see many terrorist attacks in the next four years that under Bush no one would dare...this is not saying Bush is who I would want still in office, but Obama is truly tainted as a weak President.



posted on Oct, 6 2012 @ 01:12 AM
link   
reply to post by Xtrozero
 


I don't think it's fair to pin the embassy attack on Obama. Anti-Americanism in Arabia is rooted in decades, if not centuries of Western interference, and the Bush admin increased our presence there more than Obama.

Sure, it was Obama that green lighted Libya, but embassy protests were a regional phenomena. And Libya was a NATO operation.



posted on Oct, 6 2012 @ 01:13 AM
link   
reply to post by PatrickGarrow17
 





Drones are a new thing, it's probable that under a Republican administration similar exercises would have happened and I doubt Libya would have been handled much differently.


Nope think agian because drone strikes were less under Bush the Republican.

en.wikipedia.org...



posted on Oct, 6 2012 @ 01:15 AM
link   
reply to post by Hefficide
 


I guess that means we will have to use our second amendment rights,
to just get the local store owner to accept our dollar.
We can force our dollar down the throats of other countries,
but it will not buy us a gallon of gas in California.



posted on Oct, 6 2012 @ 01:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by PatrickGarrow17
I agree more with Romney on domestic policy, but am more confident in Obama as a diplomat. Our domestic problems should be solved by a common cultural change and not a Presidential election.


If Obama is a diplomat what has not only the Middle East erupted into anti- American protest, but much of the rest of the world too...and after four years of Obama's apologist platform, it just doesn't seem like he is heading in the right direction ...


edit on 6-10-2012 by Xtrozero because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 6 2012 @ 01:17 AM
link   
reply to post by Rudy2shoes
 


I'll have to ask for clarification. If you're saying that Barack Obama having a bad debate has toppled the US dollar worldwide, I'm afraid you're about 5 years behind on the timeline.

~Heff



posted on Oct, 6 2012 @ 01:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by PatrickGarrow17
Bush admin increased our presence there more than Obama.


Didn't see anyone killing our Ambassadors while Bush was in office...lol I wonder why?

911 was a build up from the Clinton years and Bush (with all his faults) let the world know what happens when someone messes with us...I don't think the world feels the same with Obama and calculated risks start to emerge in the minds of terrorest and other nations once again.



posted on Oct, 6 2012 @ 01:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by PatrickGarrow17
reply to post by Xtrozero
 


I don't think it's fair to pin the embassy attack on Obama. Anti-Americanism in Arabia is rooted in decades, if not centuries of Western interference, and the Bush admin increased our presence there more than Obama.

Sure, it was Obama that green lighted Libya, but embassy protests were a regional phenomena. And Libya was a NATO operation.


But remember, Obama pretty much guaranteed us, if elected, the rest of the world would finally love and respect us.



Nothing was further from the truth, if anything, things are worse now as a result.



posted on Oct, 6 2012 @ 01:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by Hefficide
reply to post by Rudy2shoes
 


I'll have to ask for clarification. If you're saying that Barack Obama having a bad debate has toppled the US dollar worldwide, I'm afraid you're about 5 years behind on the timeline.

~Heff


Ok ok bad debate and 6 trillion dollars wasted...better?


edit on 6-10-2012 by Xtrozero because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 6 2012 @ 01:23 AM
link   
reply to post by neo96
 


You think that is because of Obama's policy and not the nature of technological progression? We have a lot more drones now than under Bush. I highly doubt Romney will immedietly cut back on drone strikes if elected. I haven't heard him target that topic as an area of contention with Obama.



posted on Oct, 6 2012 @ 01:23 AM
link   
reply to post by Hefficide
 


I can not see any military operation helping us at home,
since the 5 year window you quoted.





new topics
top topics
 
23
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join