Originally posted by siriuswriter
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.
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.
Originally posted by siriuswriter
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.
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.