Obama: A Better Wartime President?

page: 1
4
<<   2 >>

log in

join

posted on Nov, 20 2012 @ 07:39 PM
link   
So last term, we had Obama acting extremely diplomatically. That may have some of you thinking that he is not ready to handle a world war.

I, however, think he has the perfect mindset to be a leader during wartime. I get the feeling that he has the capability of making brilliant tactical decisions and being ruthless on the battlefield, while sparing American lives. Although I am sure he will use diplomacy until the last opportunity, I am also just as certain that he will not hesitate to act with military precision when he needs to.

In this particular situation, where we have a complete mess about to erupt, we could end up fighting Iran, Russia, China, Egypt, Syria and who knows who else without much choice in the matter, even if diplomacy is used to its maximum potential.

In fact, there are alliances that could pull us into war today with Russia even though we are on somewhat friendly terms - just because two other countries aren't getting along.

My main point is, does anyone on ATS honestly think that Mitt Romney would have been able to handle a World War better than Obama?
edit on 20-11-2012 by darkbake because: (no reason given)




posted on Nov, 20 2012 @ 07:45 PM
link   
Nope, I honestly believe that ofuhrer will be much better at getting us into more wars. He got us into more conflicts than the evil bush ever did. He is sure to continue that policy in order to distract the sheeple from the raping of our economy.



posted on Nov, 20 2012 @ 07:45 PM
link   
Well, he does have a much deserved peace prize, so that's a major plus.

I'd hide his golf clubs if I were you when stuff gets real....



posted on Nov, 20 2012 @ 07:46 PM
link   
The POTUS does not do any strategy during War nor does he have any say on what goes on during the War. If the POTUS tried to have input on strategy with the Generals it would be laughable.

As far as him being a good War Time President, probably not as good as say Bush Sr or Bush Jr. I mean, they were bread to be combative and ruthless but our current POTUS not so much.

I think Bush Jr would be a great War Time President in an actual War not the farce that was Iraq and Afghanistan.



posted on Nov, 20 2012 @ 07:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by hoochymama
The POTUS does not do any strategy during War nor does he have any say on what goes on during the War. If the POTUS tried to have input on strategy with the Generals it would be laughable.

As far as him being a good War Time President, probably not as good as say Bush Sr or Bush Jr. I mean, they were bread to be combative and ruthless but our current POTUS not so much.

I think Bush Jr would be a great War Time President in an actual War not the farce that was Iraq and Afghanistan.
Please go read a book or something. The ignorance you just demonstrated is beyond the pale. The POTUS is also the Commander in Chief of our military forces. OMG, please tell me you didn't vote!



posted on Nov, 20 2012 @ 07:51 PM
link   
reply to post by darkbake
 



My main point is, does anyone on ATS honestly think that Mitt Romney would have been able to handle a World War better than Obama?


According to several threads created during the campaign, Romney was painted as a ruthless, elitist bastard.

So, yes... I think, with those credentials, many here on ATS think Mitt has what it takes to handle a world war better than Obama.

Let's just hope we don't have one of those any time soon.



posted on Nov, 20 2012 @ 07:53 PM
link   
Absolutely. Too many are willing to rush into warfare without even seriously attempting to solve crises diplomatically. He's not afraid to push the button, but he's wise enough to understand the severity of that option. As they all should. I think too many Presidents feel as though they have something to prove, or maybe the ability alone to go to war is intoxicating to some. Who knows? All I know is that where my President stands on foreign relations, I stand with him. All except the excessive drone strikes.



posted on Nov, 20 2012 @ 08:00 PM
link   
reply to post by Zarniwoop
 


LOL Mitt Romney has such a naive, happy soul. He doesn't know what's going on in the world around him - that's the main problem I saw with him, a lot of people thought he was out of touch with the common folk. I tend to agree with them, but I didn't see any bad intentions on his part, he actually seemed genuinely nice.

Obama, on the other hand, can be nice - but he can also have an ice cold heart and has a history of doing coc aine. I'm just pointing out that I think he could fight if he needed to. Even the excessive drone strikes and the capture of Osama Bin Laden are examples of efficient wartime techniques.

I also agree with JayMp, Obama has great diplomatic skills. For example, he has intentionally stayed rather quiet over the Israeli attack on Gaza - except to send in some ships to evac U.S. citizens - both wise moves. He wishes to watch the situation unfold before taking action, in order to keep opportunities open.

I could see Romney rushing in to help Israel or something similar at just the wrong moment diplomatically.
edit on 20-11-2012 by darkbake because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 20 2012 @ 08:08 PM
link   
reply to post by darkbake
 



LOL Mitt Romney has such a naive, happy soul.


Yeah... right.

Most business tycoons are naive, happy souls

Obama gives great, rehearsed speeches, though. So, you are right... he is probably a better war-time pres.



posted on Nov, 20 2012 @ 08:10 PM
link   
Why the need for war? I can guarantee that there will be no world war without the US making some kind of aggresive move. And for whoever said that they think Mitt Romney was genuinly a nice guy! Did you really fall for that crappy acting? These guys are power hungry megelomaniacs, Obama included. Do not fall for the bs of politicians as 99.9999% are corrupt as hell.



posted on Nov, 20 2012 @ 08:12 PM
link   
reply to post by lewman
 


Well, I wouldn't guarantee that - Israel could end up at war with Egypt, Syria, Iran and Russia by herself at this rate. Then we throw in some choice European countries on one side or the other, and we have a situation similar to World War II where the U.S. didn't step in right away.

Of course, if the U.S. does step in, that does cause problems for sure so you are right.

And I'm not sure why I'm so thirsty for war... I guess I feel like things have been leading up to this, almost like it was scripted or something.
edit on 20-11-2012 by darkbake because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 20 2012 @ 08:28 PM
link   
reply to post by darkbake
 


I agree that this is a possibility but I can almost guarantee that no European nations will join a war against Russia ( a European nation itself) or China (The producer of almost everything we rely upon today, without being pressurised to do so by the US. Now a India vs Pakistan/China war could be a possibility but I just dont see China risking their economic growth on silly wars at the moment. And finally if the Russians back Iran then there will be no aggresive moves towards Iran as nobody and I would especially say no European nations would ever dream of going to war with a nation that has more than double the amount of nukes of any other nation.

Finally I would guess that 2 years ago atleast 25% of westerners would have never have heard of Syria and its probably only due to the fact that the Israeli's seem to own the worlds press that more will know today.



posted on Nov, 20 2012 @ 08:42 PM
link   
I think Obama is far, far superior at creating the conditions for World War and has surpassed his idol President Roosevelt. Troops spread thinly on all continents, land, naval, air, strategic weapons in sad decline without ability to fight sustained conventional style war means push come to shove it'll go strategic much earlier than in past. But! that'll save Obamacare with the vastly smaller population afterwards - right?

After doing major steps creating the current mess in the middle east one cannot have much confidence. Its almost as if he had a purpose.

Golf, teleprompted speech, vacationing, meeting union reps, entertainers and doing late night television does not make a wartime president.

I think the other guy would have cleaned up the mess.



posted on Nov, 20 2012 @ 08:47 PM
link   
Never mind...
edit on 11/20/2012 by Ex_CT2 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 20 2012 @ 08:51 PM
link   
reply to post by Phoenix
 



Golf, teleprompted speech, vacationing, meeting union reps, entertainers and doing late night television does not make a wartime president.


Just wait... Obama will set up a photo op toasting a beer and talking through the issues with leaders of warring nations.

His PR team is really good at that kind of thing.




posted on Nov, 20 2012 @ 09:07 PM
link   
Obama is a great politician, a great campaigner. The way he divides people is awesome. Young vs Old, White vs Black, Poor vs Rich, Men vs Women etc. I have never seen anything like it.

But as President, as Commander and Chief....he is incompetent.



posted on Nov, 20 2012 @ 09:40 PM
link   
reply to post by darkbake
 




My main point is, does anyone on ATS honestly think that Mitt Romney would have been able to handle a World War better than Obama?

With politicians as awfully-prepared for the presidency as they are today, it is a good thing there is a Secretary of Defense, Secretary of State, Attorney General, Joint Chiefs, Chief of Staff, Director of National Intelligence, etc. The days when the POTUS was a true statesmen are gone for always....



posted on Nov, 20 2012 @ 09:45 PM
link   
reply to post by Zarniwoop
 




Most business tycoons are naive, happy souls

Of course they are. Why wouldn't they be? Skipping to the bank with their millions from all their tax breaks and tax cuts from their buddies in Washington.



posted on Nov, 20 2012 @ 10:04 PM
link   
reply to post by darkbake
 


Israel is going to find itself in a lot of trouble as Obama is a Muslim groomed into islam from childhood because of his father, I doubt that Obama will do anything in the middle east to start anything, giving the impresion of a peace president .

People forget sometimes Obama Islamic roots and the links with the Muslim brotherhood.



posted on Nov, 20 2012 @ 10:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by darkbake
So last term, we had Obama acting extremely diplomatically. That may have some of you thinking that he is not ready to handle a world war.

I, however, think he has the perfect mindset to be a leader during wartime. I get the feeling that he has the capability of making brilliant tactical decisions and being ruthless on the battlefield, while sparing American lives. Although I am sure he will use diplomacy until the last opportunity, I am also just as certain that he will not hesitate to act with military precision when he needs to.

In this particular situation, where we have a complete mess about to erupt, we could end up fighting Iran, Russia, China, Egypt, Syria and who knows who else without much choice in the matter, even if diplomacy is used to its maximum potential.

In fact, there are alliances that could pull us into war today with Russia even though we are on somewhat friendly terms - just because two other countries aren't getting along.

My main point is, does anyone on ATS honestly think that Mitt Romney would have been able to handle a World War better than Obama?
edit on 20-11-2012 by darkbake because: (no reason given)


Obama is not a leader. Brilliant??????
Puuuleaze provide the brilliant proof. He can't even address Benghazi let alone a world war. I can't even begin to express my sorrow for your thought process.
edit on 20-11-2012 by Gridrebel because: (no reason given)





new topics

top topics



 
4
<<   2 >>

log in

join