Gender: Female Location: When in Doubt, Go to the Library.
Is Four Years Enough For a Peaceful President?
So we learn in American Civics, presidents of the United States have more control in the foreign field than they do domestically. Certainly we see this with former President W when we compare his eight years with Obama's three.
Is Obama's promise of change wrapped in red tape, bouncing from Congress to pork barrels to committees? Or is he just not trying hard enough?
I, personally find it hard to believe that such an idealist has been shut down.
What do you think?
__________________
It does not do to dwell on dreams and forget to live.
Obama may be considered every bit as violent and bad as Bush because of Bin Laden and that other dude he had killed...and his campaign in Afghanistan...
It's hard to call Obama peaceful in light of those. He's no different than Bush and in some regards he's worse because he killed two dudes via orders.
And he also lied/redacted his ideas about pulling out of Iraq super quick and closing down Guantanamo. So that would make him worse...
The CIA is currently active in over 100 nations, an expansion thanks to Obama. They have a "murder list" that contains the names of American citizens, like that "other dude", who are to be killed with no due process. Not to mention the treatment of Bradley Manning or the expansion of the war on drugs to now target legal medicinal marijuana dispensaries in California.
America is actively now, under Obama, waging war in Pakistan, Yemen and Somalia, and the administration is trying to use the "Iranian plot" to foment support for action in Iran and along the Mexican border.
not being critical of what you said, I just honestly feel that Obama is a very militant leader. It might be hard to compare to Bush because of apples and oranges, but man... if you think he is peaceful (i know you don't) you might be an ostrich
EDIT: whoops, forgot Libya
__________________ yes, a million times yes
Last edited by tsilamini on Oct 14th, 2011 at 11:48 PM
Gender: Unspecified Location: With Cinderella and the 9 Dwarves
I agree really, the sad thing is that the alternatives are probably worse. Oh well, I guess the US is screwed for at least 4 more years. Lets hope it won't be too late to turn it around.
Gender: Female Location: When in Doubt, Go to the Library.
Sorry, let me clarify. I didn't mean "Peaceful," persay, but rather not actively seeking war. Or am I just talking out of my arse and need to do some more research.
My idea was based on FDR and how much he was able to do because he served so many terms - and then comparing that to W actively seeking war/ declaration of war without congress' permission, etc.
I hope this makes more sense.
__________________
It does not do to dwell on dreams and forget to live.
There is a difference, sure, as in, Obama is much more willing to use the CIA and proxies to fight wars, much like was done prior to W. Bush. He isn't invading nations with ground troops like Bush did, but he doesn't shy away from violence.
And even in terms of the "troops on the ground" definition of war, Obama has escalated the war in Afghanistan and will not be committing to a full pull-out from Iraq. He, with no congressional approval, began a bombing campaign in Libya, and his use of drone warfare is by far more illegal (under both American and international law) than were W. Bush's invasions.
So, in terms of "initiating-new-wars-specifically-defined-as-invading-with-ground-troops", no, Obama is not as "war-like" as Bush. In terms of using American military power, attacking foreign nations and flagrantly violating the rule of law, Obama has in fact expanded the Bush legacy and is now operating in a much more militaristic fashion than Bush ever did.
Sure, and there are some valid arguments against term limits. However, I think you have pointed to a poor example of a president who "just needs more time"
It is incorrect to think that Obama isn't getting what he wants in terms of policy. He has capitulated to Republican and "right-of-center" interests from day one. This idea that he is being held back by republican intransigence is a talking point he is using on the campaign trail; it does not reflect reality at all.
Gender: Unspecified Location: With Cinderella and the 9 Dwarves
I agree with you that Obama is a bad president. But what makes him bad are the decisions he makes that are in line with what Republicans want of him. So Obama may have been a bad choice, but likely still better than McCain, who would have done at least the same.
KMC Community Forums
Oct 14th, 2011 10:52 PM
