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.
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?
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...
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)
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.
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.
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.