• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Obama to seal US-UN relationship

No, why else would he feel the need to be the first president to participate in a security council meeting?

Because he likes to make caucus jokes with the worlds diplomats? Pretty much any explanation is more likely than your laughable conspiracy.
 
actually, less than half the people of america thought he was qualified ;)

Actually only 22.8% thought he was qualified if we are considering voting as qualified.

There are over 300 million in the US. 69 million voted for Obama. Therefore 77.1% don't consider him qualified. But that's marginally better then Dubya, who had 21.3% qualified. I'd be interested in finding the point in time where there were more people who considered the loser more qualified then today's contemporary winners.
 
overall getting the world powers to unify against rouge parties and terrorists is decent diplomatic work.

images


I agree. Rouge is an awful color and we should unify against it.:3oops:
 
No, why else would he feel the need to be the first president to participate in a security council meeting?

Because the situation in Iran is critical?
 
Because the situation in Iran is critical?

If it's that critical, then the bombers need to be launched, now. A buncha sittin' around talking about it ain't gonna do anything.
 
Whatever. He got 51% of the vote and was elected President of the United States. If you don't think he's qualified, you needed to convince the voters of that last year. Now that he's president it doesn't make sense to argue he's unqualified to perform his duties such as Chief Diplomat.

I'm curious...at what point in his presidency do you think he'll be "qualified," and do you believe that being qualified necessarily entails agreeing with YOU on every single issue?

Hell, I think *I* am qualified to chair a meeting of the Security Council. I know the procedural matters well enough from Model UN, and am sure I could study up on the US government's position on whatever they're debating, given a few weeks. It really isn't that difficult.
Obvious child has pointed out how factually inaccurate the original quote was. And that is all i was pointing out
He is not as popular as purported. His poll numbers are below Dubya's
he is in steady decline, and if his approval ratings on handling UHC is worsening as well.

As far as being prepared for the Security, i trust you feeling you were ready because you pretended in mock UN was a touch of humor to lighten the post

Obama will be ready in my eyes only after he actually achieves something tough. He has been attacked as a polished empty vessel, a community organizer, and an empty suit that reads a teleprompter real purdy.

when controversy has arose, he has folded. the school speech being his latest, the back tracking on public option and than the 'resignation of Van Jones'

He may gain some respect from me when he stands by his principles, weathers the storm and is proven to be a man of his convictions. He doesnt even have to be seen as 'right in my eyes'

Politicians I respect for better or worse stand on 'their principles' even if they are just politically motivated. 'this is what they want, and whether they win or lose, they stood for their position.'

Obviously there are a lot of reasons in Congress to negotiate and settle, but a President is supposed to LEAD the Nation. not talk purdy and take what he can get.

there are a lot of loons totally opposed to Dear Leader, but alot of country is aligned with him, and a segment on the right, which is far greater than the loons, are willing to be convinced with reasonable changes that are necessary in America

Good luck trying to find someone against reform in Healthcare. What differs is the manner of reform. It seems Obama wants to do it all the Lefts way and **** the Rights wishes/desires. When it seems there is easily a piece of legislation that leaves an equally bad taste in both sides mouths, yet would pass and be acceptable

Personally, I would like to see Obama Fix existing Federal and/or State Healthcare programs to show everybody what he wants to implement on a National level is do-able

**** is ****ed up in healthcare and the left just wants to create the biggest program without fixing what already is. In the business world we call that FAIL

But maybe his speech tonight will show an entirely new direction, (no convictions) that appeals to more people. But since I have no tv I will not know what it details until it is brought up here

/babble
 
Obama was elected by the people of this country. The president is, and always has been, Chief Diplomat. Whether you like it or not, the people of this country have decided that Obama is qualified for that particular job. So bitching that he's actually going to fulfill his duties is the height of absurdity.

If you don't like that executive arrangement, you can move to England, where the head of state and head of government are divided between a queen and a prime minister.
Calm yourself, lest you develop apoplexy.

The "people of this country" make mistakes, they are after all only people. This is why we don't choose presidents-for-life.

The president may be the chief diplomat, but that hardly means that he is immune from the effects of megalomania or a fundamental lack of wisdom.

Also, you would be well advised to apply your statements the the presidency of George Bush the Latter, who was elected twice, indicating that his polices were approved by that most fickle of beasts (see Alexander Hamilton,) the People.
 
Calm yourself, lest you develop apoplexy.

The "people of this country" make mistakes, they are after all only people. This is why we don't choose presidents-for-life.

The president may be the chief diplomat, but that hardly means that he is immune from the effects of megalomania or a fundamental lack of wisdom.

By all means, criticize Obama's "fundamental lack of wisdom" if you think it's a problem. I'm just saying that it's a little late to call his experience into question. The time to make that case to the American people was BEFORE the election, and they rejected it.

You don't hire someone for a job, and then prevent them from fulfilling their duties because they are unqualified. If you think they're unqualified, you just don't hire them in the first place.

Oftencold said:
Also, you would be well advised to apply your statements the the presidency of George Bush the Latter, who was elected twice, indicating that his polices were approved by that most fickle of beasts (see Alexander Hamilton,) the People.

I never suggested that Bush shouldn't fulfill his duties because of his lack of experience. I merely questioned the WAY in which he fulfilled them.
 
Last edited:
By all means, criticize Obama's "fundamental lack of wisdom" if you think it's a problem. I'm just saying that it's a little late to call his experience into question. The time to make that case to the American people was BEFORE the election, and they rejected it.

I'm sure it will come into play in a couple years.
 
By all means, criticize Obama's "fundamental lack of wisdom" if you think it's a problem. I'm just saying that it's a little late to call his experience into question. The time to make that case to the American people was BEFORE the election, and they rejected it.

You don't hire someone for a job, and then prevent them from fulfilling their duties because they are unqualified. If you think they're unqualified, you just don't hire them in the first place.



I never suggested that Bush shouldn't fulfill his duties because of his lack of experience. I merely questioned the WAY in which he fulfilled them.
barry is a highly experienced community organizer and maybe that will come in useful in the joke that is called the UN
 
...nuclear disarmament...

And your problem with this is what exactly?

Nuclear weapons are the main reason why modern nations do not go to war with one another. I'd say that's a pretty good reason not to get rid of them completely.
 
Nuclear non-proliferation and nuclear disarmament...

And your problem with this is what exactly?

Removing the deterrent to war only increases the possibility of there being a war.
 
PBO will need the assistance of foreign militaries, if he attempts to take control of the government by force. He already knows that he will not have the support of the American military.
what the hell? should this post be in another forum?
 
Nuclear weapons are the main reason why modern nations do not go to war with one another. I'd say that's a pretty good reason not to get rid of them completely.

And living in a house filled with gas probably makes people more careful about starting fires. Just the same, I'd rather live in a house that is NOT filled with gas.
 
And living in a house filled with gas probably makes people more careful about starting fires. Just the same, I'd rather live in a house that is NOT filled with gas.
Your post doesnt invalidate the point.
 
Your post doesnt invalidate the point.

Actually it does...but your following me around from one thread to another, posting this inane comment over and over again, does not invalidate MY point.

Since one nuclear war packs the destructive power of MANY non-nuclear wars, it's impossible to definitively say that the increased deterrence is worth the increased destructive power. Nuclear weapons have only been around for a little over 60 years. That's not a very big sample size, and the world has already had several close calls with nukes.
 
Last edited:
Actually it does...
No. It just states that you have a prefernce.

It doesnt -change- the fact that nuclear weapons deter war and that their absence mnakes war more likely, it simply states that YOU would prefer to not have that deterrence.

Hate to tell you this, but your preferences do not overturn facts.
 
FT.com / US & Canada - Obama to seal US-UN relationship


well I think this will be a huge firestorm that will dwarf his school speech and astroturfing.

Must admit though, he sure has made a lot of moves for a community organizer

what is so special about him that his presence is required at the Security Council?

Required? Or wanted by the international community. Yup, the rest of the world that is often forgotten for realist purposes.
 
No. It just states that you have a prefernce.

It doesnt -change- the fact that nuclear weapons deter war and that their absence mnakes war more likely, it simply states that YOU would prefer to not have that deterrence.

Hate to tell you this, but your preferences do not overturn facts.

Deterrence? Like when Russia invaded Georgia? Like when Pakistan and India fight? Like when Israel does their bi-monthly invasion of Palestine. WTF are you talking about.
 
Actually it does...but your following me around from one thread to another, posting this inane comment over and over again, does not invalidate MY point.

Since one nuclear war packs the destructive power of MANY non-nuclear wars, it's impossible to definitively say that the increased deterrence is worth the increased destructive power. Nuclear weapons have only been around for a little over 60 years. That's not a very big sample size, and the world has already had several close calls with nukes.

Yeah, let's get rid of our nuclear weapons and hope all 500 countries in the world have the integrity to do the same. That will make us safer.

Good lord.
 
No. It just states that you have a prefernce.

It doesnt -change- the fact that nuclear weapons deter war and that their absence mnakes war more likely, it simply states that YOU would prefer to not have that deterrence.

Hate to tell you this, but your preferences do not overturn facts.

I'm only going to post this once, since talking with you is always like talking to a brick wall, and frankly I'd much rather discuss the issue with Ethereal than with you (which is why my comment was addressed to him and not you).

This really boils down to game theory, so let's make a list of the rules for nuclear deterrence:

Divide all countries into three groups: Group A are the non-nuclear powers, Group B are the nuclear powers without no-first-strike policies (Pakistan, North Korea), and Group C are the nuclear powers with no-first-strike policies (all the others).

Now, who is deterred from attacking who, with what kinds of weapons? Group A/B/C countries are deterred from attacking a Group B country with conventional weapons, since they could elicit a nuclear response. Group B/C countries are deterred from attacking a Group C country with nuclear weapons, since they would almost certainly elicit a nuclear response.

The question, then, is if these deterrents outweigh the carnage of a potential nuclear war. Let's examine the potential combinations of state actors that could have caused (or could still cause) a nuclear war, and how deterred they would be.

USA-USSR (Both are deterred, assuming each trusts the other to keep its no-first-strike policy. Several close calls of nuclear launches though.)

USA-Maoist China (USA is deterred due to possible Chinese nuclear retaliation. China is not deterred from conventional attacks if they assume the USA will not respond with nuclear weapons.)

India-Pakistan (Both are deterred, assuming each trusts the other not to launch first despite Pakistan's lack of a no-first-strike policy. Close call with nuclear war.)

USA-DPRK (DPRK has no additional deterrent to starting a conventional war if they assume the US will not launch nukes in response. USA is deterred if they fear nuclear retaliation, but not deterred from starting a war if they assume they can preemptively wipe out all of the DPRK's nukes.)

Israel-Arab states/groups (Israel has no additional deterrent since no Arab states or groups possess nuclear weapons. Arab states/groups are not deterred if they assume Israel will not launch nukes in response to conventional weapons.)

USA-Iran (USA is not deterred since Iran does not yet have nuclear weapons. Iran is not deterred from conventional weapons attacks if they assume the USA will not respond with nukes.)


These are the only potential conflicts involving a nuclear power that I can foresee in the immediate future, or that have already occurred. In every single case, at least one party either has no deterrent, or there was a close call DESPITE the deterrents.

Therefore, I think it's perfectly valid to question the assumption that the deterrence of nuclear weapons is worth the potential carnage. A nuclear weapons-free world is a laudable goal, even though it's somewhat distant.
 
Last edited:
Yeah, let's get rid of our nuclear weapons and hope all 500 countries in the world have the integrity to do the same. That will make us safer.

Good lord.

Did I say we should do that? No? Try to keep up. ;)
 
Deterrence? Like when Russia invaded Georgia? Like when Pakistan and India fight? Like when Israel does their bi-monthly invasion of Palestine. WTF are you talking about.

Like....they wouldn't dream of doing that to the U.S. because we'd incinerate them within the hour. And if it weren't for the U.S. and its nukes, Georgia wouldn't exist, nor would Israel.
 
Back
Top Bottom