• 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!

Is the US perceived as weaker under the Obama administration?

Is the US perceived as weaker in influence under Obama?


  • Total voters
    57
The countries in the mid-east laugh at us....They don't fear Obama at all like the did President Bush
 
The countries in the mid-east laugh at us....They don't fear Obama at all like the did President Bush

Common GOP talking point with absolutely zero evidence to actually support it.
 
Ask Osama bin DEAD Laden about that, or all other terrorists killed in the past few years. Or Anwar Al-Awaki. Or Al-Rahman and all the other terrorist leaders killed or captured under Obama.
 
Common GOP talking point with absolutely zero evidence to actually support it.

You ever hear of Iran, North Korea and Syria? They do what they want under Obama Even someone as bias as you as to admit that..
 
You ever hear of Iran, North Korea and Syria? They do what they want under Obama Even someone as bias as you as to admit that..

No they don't, and to insist they do is to swallow GOP talking points whole.
 
Ask Osama bin DEAD Laden about that, or all other terrorists killed in the past few years. Or Anwar Al-Awaki. Or Al-Rahman and all the other terrorist leaders killed or captured under Obama.

For everyone killed there are 10 to take his place.
 
No they don't, and to insist they do is to swallow GOP talking points whole.


Keep your head buried in the sand..............The fact is this is the weakest this country has been since the beginning of WW2.....Obama hates our great military and is trying to gut it.
 
Keep your head buried in the sand..............The fact is this is the weakest this country has been since the beginning of WW2.....Obama hates our great military and is trying to gut it.

i doubt you can call us weak when we still have more nukes than anyone else bar russia
 
And that's the way it's been since we started offing Al Qaeda No. 2s in 2001.

You just don't get it...You have to make the terrorists fear us...They don't now.
 
The countries in the mid-east laugh at us....They don't fear Obama at all like the did President Bush

They did not fear president Bush, they laughed at Bush even more, especially with his wars and his diplomatic failures. He went after a government that had no real army to speak off and what they had was armed with some Russian stuff. If you compared that to the military force of the US they were doomed even before the first bomb was dropped. Add to that the other Western armed forces who joined in, Afghanistan did not stand a snowflakes chance in hell.

The same with Saddam, it was a weak ass country with little military strength, especially compared to the allied forces that marched against them.

That is not a show of strength, in fact it might have weakened the US in the middle east. The US public was growing increasingly tired of fighting in that region and very fed up with the huge number of US casualties (both dead and wounded) and the immense cost it came with.

Most in the Middle East know that the US public is tired of endless wars and occupations with little or no end in sight. Obama and the US have shown that the US does not need to invade a country to punish it or go after their leaders (Ghadaffi being one). The changing political situation in the wake of 2 largely failed wars has made the whole region unstable.

Don't get me wrong, the Afghanistan war was a necessity but the Iraq war was not. We should have given armed and political support to the enemies of Saddam (both inside and outside of his own party) and brought him to his knees with precision bombings and boycotts. We should have not destroyed the balance of power in the region that drastically. Now Iran is the dominant force in the region and that is not good.
 
They did not fear president Bush, they laughed at Bush even more, especially with his wars and his diplomatic failures. He went after a government that had no real army to speak off and what they had was armed with some Russian stuff. If you compared that to the military force of the US they were doomed even before the first bomb was dropped. Add to that the other Western armed forces who joined in, Afghanistan did not stand a snowflakes chance in hell.

The same with Saddam, it was a weak ass country with little military strength, especially compared to the allied forces that marched against them.

That is not a show of strength, in fact it might have weakened the US in the middle east. The US public was growing increasingly tired of fighting in that region and very fed up with the huge number of US casualties (both dead and wounded) and the immense cost it came with.

Most in the Middle East know that the US public is tired of endless wars and occupations with little or no end in sight. Obama and the US have shown that the US does not need to invade a country to punish it or go after their leaders (Ghadaffi being one). The changing political situation in the wake of 2 largely failed wars has made the whole region unstable.

Don't get me wrong, the Afghanistan war was a necessity but the Iraq war was not. We should have given armed and political support to the enemies of Saddam (both inside and outside of his own party) and brought him to his knees with precision bombings and boycotts. We should have not destroyed the balance of power in the region that drastically. Now Iran is the dominant force in the region and that is not good.

Don't worry you boy Obama will turn tail, cut and run. The sad part under his budget cuts our military can not meet their operational commitments.
 
For everyone killed there are 10 to take his place.

That is always the way, in the times of Bush there would have been 50 to take their place because he did not actively target the leadership of Al Qaida as Obama has been doing. Now the terrorist know that the US can spew death from above with their drones and that the Obama government has a lot of attention for spying on their activities and destroying their leadership.

Doing something is always better than just taking your eyes off the prize (Bin Laden) as Bush did.
 
That is always the way, in the times of Bush there would have been 50 to take their place because he did not actively target the leadership of Al Qaida as Obama has been doing. Now the terrorist know that the US can spew death from above with their drones and that the Obama government has a lot of attention for spying on their activities and destroying their leadership.

Doing something is always better than just taking your eyes off the prize (Bin Laden) as Bush did.

Why after 9/11 were we never attacked on our mainland again under the Bush admin when it seems it happens everyday under Obama?
 
Don't worry you boy Obama will turn tail, cut and run. The sad part under his budget cuts our military can not meet their operational commitments.

And why would that be? Who is to blame for that? President Bush started 2 wars with no payment plan in sight. He kept throwing money at his rich buddies and even richer corporate donors while the troops on the ground did not have enough kevlar etc. to save their lives from the bombs and the bullets fired at them.

Obama is having to clear up the mess left behind by one George W. Bush who was able to run the US economy into the ground with his spend and not tax policies. The democrats might be irresponsible with tax and spend but Bush was much much much more irresponsible by spending with no taxes to pay for all of his spending.

Obama would love to spend money for the military if it were all needed, but sadly, he has to pay for the failure to finance the US armed forces from previous administrations, most notably that from George W. Bush.

The materials made to print money might grow on trees and shrubs but the finances behind it do not. Obama is having to live according to his means and sadly with a refusal by the republicans to even contemplate real tax increases to pay for the past, present and future health of the US budget, there is not enough money to pay for all the costs of the military.
 
Back
Top Bottom