Obama: A Better Wartime President?

page: 2
4
<< 1   >>

log in

join

posted on Nov, 20 2012 @ 10:41 PM
link   
reply to post by DarthMuerte
 
So your telling me that Bush Jr drew up the strategy for the Iraq War?? LOL....And you think that Clinton drew up the strategy for Bosnia?? LOL....Commander and Chief is a symbol for a POTUS not an actual role!!! WOW....

You really think that??




posted on Nov, 20 2012 @ 10:47 PM
link   
War Time President only really reflects the Presidents from WW1 and WW2 as they actually were in Combat. Pleassssss.....this is such a funny discussion is pointless.

But, in todays day an age with these Gutless POTUSS's, I would say Bill Clinton, Reagon, and Bush Jr would be great War Time Politions.



posted on Nov, 20 2012 @ 10:51 PM
link   
Can people please address the OP question/statement and quit going back to Bush. This is NOW about OBAMA. Please get with the program!



posted on Nov, 20 2012 @ 10:56 PM
link   
OK.. Obama as a War Time President?? NOOOOO!!!!! But since he has plenty in his Cabinet to teach him how to be one than maybe he wont be that bad.



posted on Nov, 20 2012 @ 11:29 PM
link   
Evidently, this isn't a conspiracy but a thought process. Yet we strive for denying ignorance. Gosh, why don't we give a stimulus plan to underachievers already.



posted on Nov, 20 2012 @ 11:32 PM
link   

Originally posted 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?


Obama has 4 more Years to turn his "warmongering" around.......




My main point...
Do you still think for one instance that torture isn't happening under Obama's watch? That Drones arent killing innocent victims, in his "war of terror"?

Kill list anyone?



posted on Nov, 20 2012 @ 11:59 PM
link   
Wartime President?

What does wartime mean?

By hiding behind others in the US military taking all the credit all the while trying to gut defense,make the military pay for their own health insurance, and lock them up for helping out a on a video game, while his cabinet gave complete access for that totally awesome "how Obama killed bin laden movie".

And then has presided over the most drone attacks than the last Potus that has killed over 3,000 people.

Yeah by that definition he is a better "wartime nobel peace prize winning Potus"

.en.wikipedia.org...



posted on Nov, 21 2012 @ 01:25 AM
link   
reply to post by sonnny1
 


That's what I'm saying, Obama isn't a weak president.



posted on Nov, 21 2012 @ 01:26 AM
link   
reply to post by neo96
 


Yeah, he's definitely got some sketchy totalitarian tendencies.



posted on Nov, 21 2012 @ 01:27 AM
link   
reply to post by hoochymama
 


Well I'm talking about World War III coming, I don't think a conflict in Afghanistan or something minor that is hardly a threat to our country counts as real war.



posted on Nov, 21 2012 @ 02:13 AM
link   
Don't know why, but ever since he took office Obama reminds me of Chamberlain, the British PM that tried everything to avoid war... he also got in on a landslide of public opinion.. if anything his views (like Obama in my opinion) reflect the confused will of the people at the time, not prepared to pay the price for war but also not prepared to pay the price for peace..

That confused will (in my opinion) helped open the door to WW2.. So is it really a good war time president you are after, or the political giants who manages to avert war?

I can't help think (and this is NOT just aimed at Obama) that those who inhabit our political classes at the moment tend to be political mice instead of the political giants we really need to deal with the economy and looming war..

If you look at how the press, and people reacted to Chamberlain you'll find that he too was accused of being a supporter of the enemy in the same way Obama is now..

But I prefer Orwells explanation in his essay, England, Your England, pointing out that Chamberlain (and in my opinion Obama) simply reflected the confused will of the people..


In spite of the campaigns of a few thousand left-wingers, it is fairly certain that the bulk of the English people were behind Chamberlain's foreign policy. More, it is fairly certain that the same struggle was going on in Chamberlain's mind as in the minds of ordinary people. His opponents professed to see in him a dark and wily schemer, plotting to sell England to Hitler, but it is far likelier that he was merely a stupid old man doing his best according to his very dim lights.

It is difficult otherwise to explain the contradictions of his policy, his failure to grasp any of the courses that were open to him. Like the mass of the people, he did not want to pay the price either of peace or of war. And public opinion was behind him all the while, in policies that were completely incompatible with one another. It was behind him when he went to Munich, when he tried to come to an understanding with Russia, when he gave the guarantee to Poland, when he honoured it, and when he prosecuted the war half-heartedly.

Only when the results of his policy became apparent did it turn against him; which is to say that it turned against its own lethargy of the past seven years. Thereupon the people picked a leader nearer to their mood, Churchill, who was at any rate able to grasp that wars are not won without fighting. Later, perhaps, they will pick another leader who can grasp that only Socialist nations can fight effectively.
orwell.ru...


So what do you really want? a political giant who can avert war? or political giant who can lead a nation through war?

To be honest, looking around me at the political classes I can not see anyone who matches either description.. and I think it will be that will be the reason the dogs of war are again let lose.

just my poorly spelled tuppence worth of thoughts
edit on 21/11/12 by thoughtsfull because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 21 2012 @ 03:04 AM
link   
reply to post by darkbake
 

Excuse me, who wants war?



posted on Nov, 21 2012 @ 11:14 AM
link   
I ahve to disagree. This guy wouldnt bust a grape in a fruit fight. Plus the president only makes decisions based off what his military commanders in the field and the secretary defense tell him. Its those guys who come up with the military stretegy the president just okays which choices/options have been laid out in front of him.



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)



posted on Nov, 21 2012 @ 11:25 AM
link   
reply to post by darkbake
 


I agree that he is charismatic.

But, the first thing I thought of when I started reading was that you sounded like today was your first day on this forum.

So, he may be the most charismatic guy in the world, but I still don't think he's playing for the right team.



posted on Nov, 21 2012 @ 04:24 PM
link   
Obama is weak!! The change visible from an outsider (UK) from when Bush was in Power to now the 2nd term for Obama - the USA is not the strong and "fearsome" nation it used to be.

I dont think it has the same global influence it once had, and personally, I think this is completely down to Obama - he sure can give a decent speech but when push comes to shove I think he would be the type of man to bottle a big decision.



posted on Nov, 21 2012 @ 08:39 PM
link   
President Obama is the most ruthless President we have ever had when it comes to war time. He has sent kill orders on Pirates, Terrorists, and even made the decision to get Bin Laden. (Even crazy Biden was against it). He knows how to get the job done with minimum American causalities. Everyone is on his back about the whole Benghazi incident, but that was a CIA screw up. We will never know what really happened there. I am confident that if a threat does appear, it won't last long. The guy knows what he is doing. Look how he turned all of Romney's strengths against him in the last election. Everyone acts like Obama is dumb or something.
This isn't by accident. He wants you to think he is a Muslim Kenyan Tribe Leader. He feeds off your hate after every success. Look how he handled the whole Gaza situation. He didn't get involved, but he sent Hilary and she gave the message. "You want more funding for your Iron Dome? Sign the ceasefire agreement." This is chess people and Obama is a grandmaster. Some people are just blinded by hatred to see it. He even rope a doped Romney in the first debate just to see what he was going to say...then second debate retort..third debate destruction.



posted on Nov, 21 2012 @ 08:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by youwillneverknow
Obama is weak!! The change visible from an outsider (UK) from when Bush was in Power to now the 2nd term for Obama - the USA is not the strong and "fearsome" nation it used to be.

I dont think it has the same global influence it once had, and personally, I think this is completely down to Obama - he sure can give a decent speech but when push comes to shove I think he would be the type of man to bottle a big decision.


I think Bin Laden would disagree. Along with scores of terrorist chilling with Allah right now. Have we been hit with a terrorist attack since Obama has been President? You just don't see the killer in his eyes.



posted on Nov, 22 2012 @ 03:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by ltheghost

Originally posted by youwillneverknow
Obama is weak!! The change visible from an outsider (UK) from when Bush was in Power to now the 2nd term for Obama - the USA is not the strong and "fearsome" nation it used to be.

I dont think it has the same global influence it once had, and personally, I think this is completely down to Obama - he sure can give a decent speech but when push comes to shove I think he would be the type of man to bottle a big decision.


I think Bin Laden would disagree. Along with scores of terrorist chilling with Allah right now. Have we been hit with a terrorist attack since Obama has been President? You just don't see the killer in his eyes.


The "scores of terrorists chilling with Allah" is a result of an ongoing campaign and not a direct result of Obama being in the hot seat - as for not being hit with a terrorist attack, neither has anywhere in the Western world for a while - the USA is far from immune just like anywhere else, if there is a strong enough attempt, it will happen...anywhere.

Obama is not the man directly responsible for the killing of Bin Laden...you think if information was passed on about Bin Ladens whereabouts to another President that they wouldnt have given the go ahead?? There wouldnt have been a hesitation from anyone in the Presidential position.

If it kicks off big time in the middle east with Iran I really doubt Obama would have the balls to step up, nor the funds as, under his directive, your economy is crippled.

It certainly isnt the same nation it was under Bush and the administrations before him. IMO



posted on Nov, 23 2012 @ 02:01 PM
link   
Dear ATS Readers, Writers,

Interesting post..I suppose, as some writers have mentioned, it depends on what the definition of "wartime" POTUS you mean.

If you mean a POTUS during a congressional declared war...(not since WW2), then I think he would lack in some nebulous areas.

If you mean in the current Orwellian non declared war, then I think he has done a good job. In fact, I think he has even possibly delayed, hopefully stopped WW3...

By hônest defińition I am a conservative Libertarian. I have abandoned this left-right paradigm that most of USA society has de-evolved into.

I think the country is screwed no matter who got elected...

And that it is all being engineered.

The only good thing I can say about POTUS Obama is he is finally telling Israel to sit down and STFU. remember the hot microphone incident? When one politicîan mentioned he didn't trust Bibi and that he was a liar, and Obamas mic picked up hîm saying, You think you got it bad, I gotta talk with him on the phone almost daily!

Words very similar to those anyhow.

When you tie that incident, and similar remarks recently to a ongoing PURGE of high level and influential military officers.... And add in the Petraus scandal, (lot more to it than boinking socialite bimbos), per many in the inner circles.

Alternative news is saying the purge is because there was a inner secret plot to create a false flag incident with Iran. That the Military Industrial Complex was planning to give the world the big balloon of WW3.

IF THIS IS IN FACT THE TRUTH, THEN HE IS THE GREATEST PRESIDENT EVER,,! But we will never know. Maybe our greatgrandkids will.

Even though I can't begin to like the man, I have to give him credit for just beginning to put Israel back in the cage for a little while it seems anyway. Israel has had way too much influence on/in USA policy. Dual citizens in high places, etc.

pravdaseeker



posted on Dec, 4 2012 @ 01:58 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.


George Bush jr?


Flipping heck he almost started ATLEAST 2 World Wars.





new topics

top topics



 
4
<< 1   >>

log in

join