• 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
Captain America said:
Agreed. Not only did I see it coming, I actually spoke about it being the inevitable, right here at Debate Politics, many years ago.

When the majority is oppressed by a minority with an iron glove and a bloody sword, payback is just a matter of time.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...




You and I are on the same page. I also posted comments about this many times.
 
Bob N said:
Yeah. They probably thought that Bill Clinton was in charge when they hit the WTC in New York and the Pentagon in DC, right? :roll:
Click to expand...

He was president for 6 months when that happened and there is plenty of blame to go around for Clinton and Bush. You have to admit after that we had zero attacks.As bias and partisan you have to give President Bush credit for that.
 
Peter King said:
Try and keep things correct, firstly Obama said that the core leadership has been decimated during debates with Mitt Romney and later he said:

while “core al-Qaeda is on its heels, has been decimated,” it has “metastasized” into regional groups that threaten the United States on a smaller scale than the original terror organization.

Also, just because groups call themselves or operate in civil war struggles under the name Al Qaeda, does not make them terrorist groups that belong to the core terrorist organization called Al Qaeda.
Click to expand...

Are you kidding me. "On it keels, has been decimated" AQ is around the word and it is gaining strength, hardly on it's keels or decimated.
 
Navy Pride said:
He was president for 6 months when that happened and there is plenty of blame to go around for Clinton and Bush. You have to admit after that we had zero attacks.As bias and partisan you have to give President Bush credit for that.
Click to expand...
Oh. I'm didn't begin the blame game, Sir. You were alluding to while President Bush was President there were no terrorists attacks. Well like it or not, Bush was President when that happened. Why didn't the terrorists wait until Bush started his tenure before they attacked? Could it be they thought he was weaker? Is it possible they were running late? Who knows, right?

The fact of the matter is George did the right thing and took the fight to them--Afghanistan. But once it began he told us that Osama bin Laden could run but he can't hide. Well guess what he did. He ran from Tora Bora when George Bush thought it would be alright to send in people that we were fighting beforehand to capture him. For some reason he slipped through and made it in to Pakistan where he successfully hid until the end of Bush's tenure and got killed by Special Forces on May 2, 2011 (I guess a person just can't trust people that you were fighting beforehand to do the job for some reason, right? :roll: )

Eventually George Bush gave us a reason to cheer by arriving on an aircraft carrier with a sign depicting "Mission Accomplished" with press coverage and all the bells and whistles. Really? Accomplished what? Making the disease spread to other parts of the Middle East? :sarcasticclap

Further down the road during a press conference George tells us just how much he is not worried about Osama anymore and how much he felt him to be irrelevant to the big picture. Meanwhile Osama is probably still orchestrating more insane, skullduggery from that comfortable house in Pakistan. Wasn't George Bush assured that the Pakistani government had their full support on Bush's cause or something like that? Well apparently it's hard to find the most wanted man in the world right in the middle of one of the most popular towns in Pakistan for their military, right? :roll:

Now permit me to return to whether it was Bush's fault or Clinton's. Here's my take on it. That madness would have went down even if Al Gore would have won the Presidency.

Terrorists are a bunch of nuts and they don't care if you're frightened of them or not. The world has not changed a bit and will not change until the whole world realizes their involvement is necessary to end acts of terror.
 
Born Free said:
Are you kidding me. "On it keels, has been decimated" AQ is around the word and it is gaining strength, hardly on it's keels or decimated.
Click to expand...

As a centralized organization, it has been decimated. AQ is now largely comprised of regional cells that are only affiliated with each other in the sense that they refer to themselves as "Al Qaeda." Which is basically what was bound to happen after we spent 12 years playing whack-a-mole in Afghanistan and Pakistan with its leadership.
 
Bob N said:
Yeah. They probably thought that Bill Clinton was in charge when they hit the WTC in New York and the Pentagon in DC, right? :roll:
Click to expand...

If you have ever read Osama bin Laden's first Fatwa, Bin Laden decided to hit the WTC because of President Clinton being looked at as a paper tiger. Basically because of Clinton talking loudly and not carrying a big stick, Bin Laden believed G.W. Bush was also a pantywaist. Bin Laden was wrong, Bush invaded Afghanistan.

Bin Laden's own words:

>" But your most disgraceful case was in Somalia; where- after vigorous propaganda about the power of the USA and its post cold war leadership of the new world order- you moved tens of thousands of international force, including twenty eight thousands American solders into Somalia. However, when tens of your solders were killed in minor battles and one American Pilot was dragged in the streets of Mogadishu you left the area carrying disappointment, humiliation, defeat and your dead with you. Clinton appeared in front of the whole world threatening and promising revenge , but these threats were merely a preparation for withdrawal. You have been disgraced by Allah and you withdrew; the extent of your impotence and weaknesses became very clear. It was a pleasure for the "heart" of every Muslim and a remedy to the "chests" of believing nations to see you defeated in the three Islamic cities of Beirut , Aden and Mogadishu..."<

Bin Laden's Fatwa | PBS NewsHour | Aug. 23, 1996 | PBS

Bin Laden believed that the only response by America after the 9-11-01 attacks on American soil would only be the launching of a hundred Tomahawk cruise missiles and avoiding collateral damage. That would have probably been Clinton's response if he was still POTOS. Clinton like Obama uses unmanned aircraft and don't put boots on the ground without politically correct rules of engagement that favor the enemy and causes Americans soldiers to bleed and die.
 
Kobie said:
As a centralized organization, it has been decimated. AQ is now largely comprised of regional cells that are only affiliated with each other in the sense that they refer to themselves as "Al Qaeda." Which is basically what was bound to happen after we spent 12 years playing whack-a-mole in Afghanistan and Pakistan with its leadership.
Click to expand...

Describe AQ anyway you want. AQ is alive and well and growing and they all hate us. These little regional cells you call them that are on their heels and decimated killed 4 of our own in our own embassy and not one has been brought to justice. Obama had to lie about Benghazi to get reelected, stating it was a video. Liar Obama just can't tell the truth and you now tell me what Liar Obama has told you and of course you believe him. Further Iraq is now a hot bed for AQ and there it is no small regional cell.

Read this and tell me their just regional cells on their heels and are decimated.

Al Qaeda allies take over Fallujah, Iraq | News | DW.DE | 04.01.2014
 
Born Free said:
Describe AQ anyway you want. AQ is alive and well and growing and they all hate us. These little regional cells you call them that are on their heels and decimated killed 4 of our own in our own embassy and not one has been brought to justice. Obama had to lie about Benghazi to get reelected, stating it was a video. Liar Obama just can't tell the truth and you now tell me what Liar Obama has told you and of course you believe him. Further Iraq is now a hot bed for AQ and there it is no small regional cell.

Read this and tell me their just regional cells on their heels and are decimated.

Al Qaeda allies take over Fallujah, Iraq | News | DW.DE | 04.01.2014
Click to expand...

Apparently you didn't read what I posted. Not surprising.
 
APACHERAT said:
If you have ever read Osama bin Laden's first Fatwa, Bin Laden decided to hit the WTC because of President Clinton being looked at as a paper tiger. Basically because of Clinton talking loudly and not carrying a big stick, Bin Laden believed G.W. Bush was also a pantywaist. Bin Laden was wrong, Bush invaded Afghanistan.

Bin Laden's own words:

>" But your most disgraceful case was in Somalia; where- after vigorous propaganda about the power of the USA and its post cold war leadership of the new world order- you moved tens of thousands of international force, including twenty eight thousands American solders into Somalia. However, when tens of your solders were killed in minor battles and one American Pilot was dragged in the streets of Mogadishu you left the area carrying disappointment, humiliation, defeat and your dead with you. Clinton appeared in front of the whole world threatening and promising revenge , but these threats were merely a preparation for withdrawal. You have been disgraced by Allah and you withdrew; the extent of your impotence and weaknesses became very clear. It was a pleasure for the "heart" of every Muslim and a remedy to the "chests" of believing nations to see you defeated in the three Islamic cities of Beirut , Aden and Mogadishu..."<

Bin Laden's Fatwa | PBS NewsHour | Aug. 23, 1996 | PBS

Bin Laden believed that the only response by America after the 9-11-01 attacks on American soil would only be the launching of a hundred Tomahawk cruise missiles and avoiding collateral damage. That would have probably been Clinton's response if he was still POTOS. Clinton like Obama uses unmanned aircraft and don't put boots on the ground without politically correct rules of engagement that favor the enemy and causes Americans soldiers to bleed and die.
Click to expand...
Really? I just wonder what bin Laden was thinking while President Obama was watching him get killed by a Navy Seal bullet? Did you ever ask yourself why George Bush wasn't sitting behind that monitor watching that? How's that for boots on the ground?

Here's what he probably planned to write for that last Fatwa: نهاية ;)
 
Bob N said:
Really? I just wonder what bin Laden was thinking while President Obama was watching him get killed by a Navy Seal bullet? Did you ever ask yourself why George Bush wasn't sitting behind that monitor watching that? How's that for boots on the ground?

Here's what he probably planned to write for that last Fatwa: نهاية ;)
Click to expand...

Bin Laden was probably out of the loop just as Obama was.

Navy SEAL's were stood down three times. Scuttlebutt is that it was Valerie Jarrett telling Obama not to do it fearing it would jepordise Obama's reelection. Eventually Obama threw the whole mess in Leon Pannetta's lap and he dumped in on Admiral. McRaven's lap. It was Adm. McRaven who ordered ther SEAL's to go in, not Obama. Obama wasn't even notified until the MH-60's were entering Pakistan air space.

» Pentagon Disputes Claim that Memo Gave Obama Cover in Case of bin Laden Raid Failure Alex Jones' Infowars: There's a war on for your mind!

The "gutsy order" and the handwritten memo.

>" The memo in question is apparently the April 2011 hand-written memo from Panetta to Naval Special Operations Cmdr. Adm. Bill McRaven -- the letter was first obtained by Time magazine, and later confirmed by Fox News. It instructed McRaven to execute the raid on bin Laden’s compound in Abbottabad, Pakistan, only according to the “risk profile” presented to Obama and to relay additional risk-related information to the president before proceeding.

“The timing, operational decision making and control are in Admiral McRaven’s hands,” the memo states.


Mukasey did not back down from his claim....

“You better believe if anything else had been encountered and the mission had failed, then the blame would have fallen on McRaven,” Mukasey, appointed attorney general in 2007 under the George W. Bush administration, told Fox News on Monday night. “That’s what that is about.”..."<
Panetta drafted a letter to blame someone else, if the bin Laden mission failed - Topic



And it was Leon Panetta who acknowledge that the intelligence that led to Bin Laden was gathered during the Bush administration with the starboarding of the mastermind and the one who organized, trained and over saw the operations of the 9-11-01 attacks on America, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed.
 
NoC_T said:
I don't think you're in danger of being invaded any time soon.

Economically and politically, we could argue forever. There's no definitive baseline for comparison. The question is too ambiguous.
Click to expand...

The question was not if we are in danger of being invaded. :roll:

The question was very specific, even if you dont want to answer it as such.
 
notquiteright said:
We just had a poll posted about 10 most admired people in the world by nation. It was brought in by a CON because Oxcy Rush beat Hillary in the USofA poll. I'm sure you saw it. In EVERY nation BushII didn't make the list, any list, outside the USofA. In the UK where he was much 'admired' and they were our partner in the Iraq debacle BushII couldn't break the top 30... :roll:

If you define 'weaker' as not reckless then yeah ya got it Sparky!

Obama seems damned if he does and damned if he doesn't when it comes to overseas intervention. While some mindless hawks rant about Putin in Syria, the result is Putin backed down and world war was averted- even though a long line of CONS tried to make the incident out to what happened in Aug 1914.

Obama isn't weak, he just isn't a shoot from the lip, ex-cheerleader, legacy bratt.
Click to expand...

You cite one poll. Most admired is not the same as approval.
Bush trumps Obama and has for some time. Odd that MSNBC would leave that out. :)

Putin backed down in Syria? :) Assad is still in power, Putin still gets to sell him weapons, and Obama looked like a chump when he had to back down. Where do you get your news?
 
US Conservative said:
The question was not if we are in danger of being invaded. :roll:

The question was very specific, even if you dont want to answer it as such.
Click to expand...
I thought it was apropos, given the usual 'sky is falling' paranoia and the silly anti-Obama slant.
 
US Conservative said:
You cite one poll. Most admired is not the same as approval.
Bush trumps Obama and has for some time. Odd that MSNBC would leave that out. :)

Putin backed down in Syria? :) Assad is still in power, Putin still gets to sell him weapons, and Obama looked like a chump when he had to back down. Where do you get your news?
Click to expand...

I have a feeling you're one of those US Conservatives that would damn him whatever he did. If he determined and achieved the deposition of Assad, you'd condemn him for kow-towing to the Saudis and being a secret AQ supporter.
 
Hmm, the day of his election various countries released statements along the lines of "We are pleased to see that we can work with the US again." So yeah, i think GW managed to isolate the country with such polarizing tactics as "You're with us or against us" and "freedom fries."
 
US Conservative said:
The left does not like to be pinned down with facts. Its their nature.
Click to expand...
Were there any forthcoming, we might have some basis for discussion. As it is, we have only the usual weariness.

And its the 'nature' of both Cons and Libs to deny that which doesn't suit their respective agendas. You're all stuck in the Wings. Happily, I don't labour beneath such grand delusions.
 
Helix said:
if "weaker" means less of a perceived empirical "superpower," i hope so. we have been the first world's pro bono army for more than half a a century now, and it's time to go back to being a country. it is someone else's turn to bankrupt itself on global police actions while we fix our damned bridges and improve the lives of average working citizens.

every empire collapses. some countries endure. seems like it's better for us to be a country.
Click to expand...

This sentiment is what worries us in Britain so much. We understand, better than anyone, what it is to be an empire besieged, and what it looks like when the time comes to give up the mantle of world leader and focus on your country instead -- this is what we did after the Second World War. After nearly four hundred years of empire, and two centuries of being the world superpower, it was time to change.

But the US has had so little time in the spotlight, comparatively. Only since 1918 have you been a power, only since 1945 have you been a superpower, and only since 1991 -- so soon! -- have you been THE world power. It's barely two decades later, and you're ready to give up?

To whom? The Chinese? The Indians? You want them ruling us? Europe has carried the torch of Western civilisation for eons, and now our colonies, like the US, Canada, Australia, Mexico, are finally mature enough to help shoulder some of this great weight. In a very grandiose sense, don't abandon us and turn inwards, not yet.

America has the resources and the people and the culture to be at the forefront yet. Don't give up your chance because it is tough -- most cultures never get a second shot at being the superpower (to my memory, I can only think of a few that have risen and fallen more than once). Where is the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth now? How extensive is the Spanish Empire?

This may all seem too airy and philosophical, but I think it is a very real commitment that American citizens must make -- to your country, and more widely to our shared Western civilisation -- if the continued dominance of the West is to be true of this century.
 
Ad_Captandum said:
This sentiment is what worries us in Britain so much. We understand, better than anyone, what it is to be an empire besieged, and what it looks like when the time comes to give up the mantle of world leader and focus on your country instead -- this is what we did after the Second World War. After nearly four hundred years of empire, and two centuries of being the world superpower, it was time to change.

But the US has had so little time in the spotlight, comparatively. Only since 1918 have you been a power, only since 1945 have you been a superpower, and only since 1991 -- so soon! -- have you been THE world power. It's barely two decades later, and you're ready to give up?

To whom? The Chinese? The Indians? You want them ruling us? Europe has carried the torch of Western civilisation for eons, and now our colonies, like the US, Canada, Australia, Mexico, are finally mature enough to help shoulder some of this great weight. In a very grandiose sense, don't abandon us and turn inwards, not yet.

America has the resources and the people and the culture to be at the forefront yet. Don't give up your chance because it is tough -- most cultures never get a second shot at being the superpower (to my memory, I can only think of a few that have risen and fallen more than once). Where is the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth now? How extensive is the Spanish Empire?

This may all seem too airy and philosophical, but I think it is a very real commitment that American citizens must make -- to your country, and more widely to our shared Western civilisation -- if the continued dominance of the West is to be true of this century.
Click to expand...

Yes, I absolutely want us to just be a country again. As for who takes over, my guess is China.

We're bankrupt. Our **** is falling apart. No other country is paying taxes for our global police actions. ****, we're not even paying taxes for our global police actions. The job market sucks, and it costs twenty five grand just for the privilege of having a mild heart attack. I cut my thumb a month ago. Two cm; they superglued it shut. Fifteen hundred bucks, and my share of that is nine hundred. I'm told that we can't afford to put everyone on medicare, but somehow we can afford any new global police mission.

So soon? We should have abdicated from imperialism decades ago. Look at all of these wars. Look at the consequences.

I sympathize with the rest of the free world. I am well aware of our negative image, as well. But at some point, if the first world wants an army, it needs to build and fund one. We can't afford it anymore, and we need to focus on non - military activities until our house is in order.
 
Navy Pride said:
He was president for 6 months when that happened and there is plenty of blame to go around for Clinton and Bush. You have to admit after that we had zero attacks.As bias and partisan you have to give President Bush credit for that.
Click to expand...




I'll give G.W. Bush credit for being President of the USA when the 911 attacks happened.

What more do you want?
 
If the military aint killing terrorist, why aint they home? Why did we ever go to Iraq?
Born Free said:
At least now you know AQ is not on its heels or decimated.
Click to expand...
 
But, but, but it was Clintons fault.
shrubnose said:
I know that the only massive Al-Qaeda attack on the USA happened while G.W. Bush was in the White House.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom