In light of current events in the Middle East, do you think President Obama is being

Re: In light of current events in the Middle East, do you think President Obama is be

Navy Pride said:

Yes I guess so but unlike past Presidents who supported our military he has total disdain for them and not only was he talking about global warming today and the minimum wage he has been doing it for several weeks. Anything to keep our minds off the ME it seems......He has fired more commanders in the military by far then any other president.......Not only that he has cut their budgets so bad that we no longer can fight wars on two fronts. Thanks to him our ships don't have the money to operate and go to sea .....The scary part to me is he is tearing this country down block by block. The American people better wake up before its to late.......Thanks for your input we will just have to agree to disagree on this one

Click to expand...

I can totally respect your opinion on the matter. I'm sure weak is an adjective many would use to describe him.

I would just add that all his minimum wage talk and global warming talk has been rhetoric. It's agenda setting. But you are absolutely right about his attempt to take our minds off the Middle East. But every President does that when it comes to foreign policy because they don't think we can understand how nuanced it is. In many cases, that's true. In many cases, it's not true.

I don't think he despises our military by any means. When it comes to firing military commanders, we have to remember that nowadays, military commanders aren't what they used to be. I'm not sure how old you are or when you served in the Navy, but back in my day, commanders were usually former grunts that proved themselves in battle and knew a lot about military strategy. Today's commanders are academics. And for good reason. War is different now in a lot of ways. Our enemy is different, and as such, our response is a lot more complex than it has ever been. So I can understand the higher turnover rate of military commanders. I don't know what his specific reasons are for replacing them, but I can only hope it is for legitimate ones.

As for the defense cuts, Hagel made clear that the defense cuts were the result of Congress and their sequestration deal. I can't remember Obama's budgetary response to defense in previous budgets, but I'm pretty sure it didn't change very significantly from the past. But yeah, the cuts, regardless of the source, are reducing our military to the smallest size it's been since the 40s, if I recall correctly. Which I don't think is a good thing. There's also the issue of state naval bases, like you mention, that are struggling to operate. I think this is largely due to the sequestration as well, but I could be wrong. A lot of that varies from state to state. I know VA is doing well because we have Norfolk, so we're probably an exception.

Thanks for letting me give my two cents. I would just like to end by saying that (and this may just be a agree to disagree issue as well) I don't believe Obama is tearing our country down, or even if I choose to believe he is, I don't think it's intentional. I think you and I just operate on different fundamental views than President Obama. And while things aren't necessarily good right now with our defense taking a hit, Obamacare being a disaster, the Middle East in shambles, the abuse of executive power by the executive branch over the past 10 years, etc., I just don't believe we can make Obama the boogeyman for all those problems. The one thing, as an Obama critic, that I try to encourage (and again, it's just my opinion and how I prefer to approach debate) is criticize Obama where he deserves the criticism (and he certainly deserves a lot), but we also have to remember that our divided and corrupt Congress is not innocent in the matter and issues are often more complicated than they appear/we make them. It's easy to make Obama the root of all the problems, but it's not entirely accurate across all fronts. Yes, he's not a great president, but I am wary of blowing his faults out of proportion. It's difficult not to do that sometimes because of the emotional investment we all have in politics, as Machiavelli brilliantly pointed out so long ago.

Thanks again for having this dialogue with me. It's nice to not have everything be so cut throat, haha.

Re: In light of current events in the Middle East, do you think President Obama is be

polisciguy said:

I can totally respect your opinion on the matter. I'm sure weak is an adjective many would use to describe him.

I would just add that all his minimum wage talk and global warming talk has been rhetoric. It's agenda setting. But you are absolutely right about his attempt to take our minds off the Middle East. But every President does that when it comes to foreign policy because they don't think we can understand how nuanced it is. In many cases, that's true. In many cases, it's not true.

I don't think he despises our military by any means. When it comes to firing military commanders, we have to remember that nowadays, military commanders aren't what they used to be. I'm not sure how old you are or when you served in the Navy, but back in my day, commanders were usually former grunts that proved themselves in battle and knew a lot about military strategy. Today's commanders are academics. And for good reason. War is different now in a lot of ways. Our enemy is different, and as such, our response is a lot more complex than it has ever been. So I can understand the higher turnover rate of military commanders. I don't know what his specific reasons are for replacing them, but I can only hope it is for legitimate ones.

As for the defense cuts, Hagel made clear that the defense cuts were the result of Congress and their sequestration deal. I can't remember Obama's budgetary response to defense in previous budgets, but I'm pretty sure it didn't change very significantly from the past. But yeah, the cuts, regardless of the source, are reducing our military to the smallest size it's been since the 40s, if I recall correctly. Which I don't think is a good thing. There's also the issue of state naval bases, like you mention, that are struggling to operate. I think this is largely due to the sequestration as well, but I could be wrong. A lot of that varies from state to state. I know VA is doing well because we have Norfolk, so we're probably an exception.

Thanks for letting me give my two cents. I would just like to end by saying that (and this may just be a agree to disagree issue as well) I don't believe Obama is tearing our country down, or even if I choose to believe he is, I don't think it's intentional. I think you and I just operate on different fundamental views than President Obama. And while things aren't necessarily good right now with our defense taking a hit, Obamacare being a disaster, the Middle East in shambles, the abuse of executive power by the executive branch over the past 10 years, etc., I just don't believe we can make Obama the boogeyman for all those problems. The one thing, as an Obama critic, that I try to encourage (and again, it's just my opinion and how I prefer to approach debate) is criticize Obama where he deserves the criticism (and he certainly deserves a lot), but we also have to remember that our divided and corrupt Congress is not innocent in the matter and issues are often more complicated than they appear/we make them. It's easy to make Obama the root of all the problems, but it's not entirely accurate across all fronts. Yes, he's not a great president, but I am wary of blowing his faults out of proportion. It's difficult not to do that sometimes because of the emotional investment we all have in politics, as Machiavelli brilliantly pointed out so long ago.

Thanks again for having this dialogue with me. It's nice to not have everything be so cut throat, haha.

Click to expand...

I will leave it at this........Its probably not all Obama's fault.......Before he was elected he never held a job or ran anything but he is the president, supposedly the strongest man in the world and as a great president once said and I paraphrase. "The buck stops here."

Re: In light of current events in the Middle East, do you think President Obama is be

jamesrage said:

The middle east is none of our business.So not I do not think Obama is being weak on foreign policy.

Click to expand...

How convincingly naive.

Re: In light of current events in the Middle East, do you think President Obama is be

President Obama bombs ISIS last week and THEN informs the four congressional leaders today by law.
This is most certainly a policy.
And I want him continue to tell our enemies he has "no strategy".
They know better .

Re: In light of current events in the Middle East, do you think President Obama is be

face said:

If he can deal with ISIS from the air while providing material and logistical aid to support Ukrainian sovereignty without escalating with Russia then I'm all for it. And don't look at what he says look at what he does, do you really think he's going to lay his hand on the table during a press conference?

Click to expand...

Nope - he has his minions leak it on the Sunday talk shows.

Re: In light of current events in the Middle East, do you think President Obama is be

The GOP continues to goad the President into war around the planet before the election.
Nothing is sacred with them any more.

They know America is war-weary and are fully aware of the polls against war on the ground .

Re: In light of current events in the Middle East, do you think President Obama is be

Navy Pride said:

"The buck stops here."

Click to expand...

And that is a good point that should not be understated. Well said.

Re: In light of current events in the Middle East, do you think President Obama is be

jamesrage said:

9-11 was a result of our government's meddling in the affairs of their countries.

Click to expand...

That anti-American propaganda does not become one iota less false, no matter how many times leftists who disdain the United States parrot it.

Throat cutters in headscarves were not sitting around doing nothing and figured it would be fun to fly some some planes into American buildings.

Click to expand...

Rubbish. You are showing your profound ignorance of the 9/11 attacks and the history of events that led to them. If you would like to debate that history with me, come ahead.

I know you probably think its because Saandan Francisco is homosexual capital of the country and that we don't treat women like cattle

Click to expand...

I don't give a tinker's damn about San Francisco, or any homosexuals who live there, or how they treat women.

Re: In light of current events in the Middle East, do you think President Obama is be

Putin point-blank threatens the West with his Nuclear weapons and the
GOP fawns all over him and wants to have him be our leader for 48 hours.

Putin invades Crimea and Eastern Ukraine in support of Russian speakers.
Who did that during WW2 ?

Re: In light of current events in the Middle East, do you think President Obama is be

Putin uses Stalinist tactics against his own people when they dissent and he is strong according to the GOP.

We are still at war in Afghanistan and against Terrorism from last decade as administrations have always overlapped in a "free" Nation.

It's high team we readopt the Sedition Act we were forced to use during WW1 .

Re: In light of current events in the Middle East, do you think President Obama is be

The only minions I see on Sunday talk shows are those like Intelligence Chair Rogers of marbles and chess fame.

Too bad if any of you are upset when I call this giving aid and comfort to Putin.

Do listen to Senators Feinstein and Menendez if you think they're parroting the President.

They are warhawks like McCain et al and are mentally butthurt because
Obama no longer trusts them with good reason with any intel BEFORE he bombs and drones .

Re: In light of current events in the Middle East, do you think President Obama is be

polisciguy said:

And that is a good point that should not be understated. Well said.

Click to expand...

Thanks for your input.............Hope to hear more from you in the future.

Re: In light of current events in the Middle East, do you think President Obama is be

Objective Voice said:

We hear the phrase "peace through strength" repeated often from those on the Right (and a few Conservative-Democrats) and to an extent it does work. But only in so far as you can continue to instill "fear" into the hearts and minds of those who may oppose you. This is essentially what those who criticize Pres. Obama's foreign policy are trying to convince people about - that because he's not showing a strong military presence around the world (specifically in key hot spots, i.e., Russia/Ukraine, China/Taiwan and of course all across the ME). While I would agree with the politics of Pres. Obama's "war on terror" as ttwtt78640 describes it, I'd have to say it's a reasonable path to follow given that:

a) our position on national sovereignty, self governance would be in stark conflict with "go over there, impose your will and bomb the hell outta them Jihadist rag-heads";

b) Neither Congress nor the People have the stomach for yet another unprovoked war.

c) regardless of your individual views concerning Pres. Obama's use of military might abroad, any action he takes military can only be limited in scope due to the mature of each conflict as most remain either 1-on-1 skirmishes (i.e., Israel/Palestine; Russia/Ukraine), internal problems (i.e., civil war - Syria; civil unrest - insurgency) or regional (i.e., ISIS/ISIL spewing over the Syrian/Iraqi border).

To say that the world is coming apart because America won't get in the middle of any of it and assert their military might is a very foolish position to take. You're essentially asking the U.S. to jump into every "bar fight" the crops up. (Have you ever jumped head-first into a bar fight? Those things get out of hand in a BIG hurry!)

Click to expand...

You forget that we are stilll spending billions annually in the ME while often funding both sides of those "regional conflicts". To say that the US is otherwise not involved in the ME "bar fights" simply because we do not include a miilitary "option" in our ME policy is also dishonest.

Re: In light of current events in the Middle East, do you think President Obama is be

The question might be, not is he weak on foreign policy? but, is he perceived by America's enemies as being weak? Big difference I think.

Re: In light of current events in the Middle East, do you think President Obama is be

Navy Pride said:

Not to sure of that.........Thanks to Obama we get a lot of oil there........Do you want to pay $10.00 a gallon for gas?

Click to expand...

Look at the stats, drill baby drill.

U.S. Crude Oil Imports

Re: In light of current events in the Middle East, do you think President Obama is be

NIMBY said:

Putin uses Stalinist tactics against his own people when they dissent and he is strong according to the GOP.

We are still at war in Afghanistan and against Terrorism from last decade as administrations have always overlapped in a "free" Nation.

It's high team we readopt the Sedition Act we were forced to use during WW1 .

Click to expand...

The GOP would love to have a prez like Putin. Some conservative like Putin too.

Re: In light of current events in the Middle East, do you think President Obama is be

Navy Pride said:

I have to disagree with you when it comes to foreign policy..He is the weakest president on foreign policy in my lifetime........He is clueless on the issue and to come on the other day and says he has no strategy is insane. To tell the enemy when your leaving is also very dumb. All they have to do is sit it out and wait to you leave and that what the enemy did in Iraq......The mid east is boiling over and Obama talks about minimum wage and global warming.....

Give me a freaking break.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

You are now granted a break from now until the end of time.

Now maybe you could give the rest of the people on this planet just a little break from your BS, eh? :lamo

Is that possible?

Re: In light of current events in the Middle East, do you think President Obama is be

Since the question was "Do I think Obama is being weak" I answered "No". I don't think he is being "weak". I think he's befuddled and probably (and correctly) wants to get the right actions that will do the least amount of harm with the greatest impact, I think he's being thoughtful. Now, can that be considered "weak" by some people? Maybe.

I don't want to see this country come down like Leviathan without knowing the risks, the dangers, and the final rewards.

Re: In light of current events in the Middle East, do you think President Obama is be

Weak is an understatement.

I think he's directly responsible for what's going on in Ukraine, Iraq, and Syria today.

Re: In light of current events in the Middle East, do you think President Obama is be

shavingcollywob said:

Weak is an understatement.

I think he's directly responsible for what's going on in Ukraine, Iraq, and Syria today.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

If that's what you think then you're not thinking very hard, you need to rev up your thinking machine and put a lot more neurons to work.

Re: In light of current events in the Middle East, do you think President Obama is be

Objective Voice said:

Why do people continue to think that the President of the United States must remain at the White House...

Click to expand...

Physical presence away from the WH may often be required while on duty.

Objective Voice said:

to personally handle every foreign or domestic crisis that flares up?

Click to expand...

Some crises are so big that they obviously require the personal attention of the President. In such cases no other premise is reasonable.

His personal attendance is, obviously, especially important when US military action may be required, as with ISIS.

His personal attendance is also, obviously, especially important in the case of the the biggest crisis of the century in Europe, one which has involved aggressive military action by another party, as in Ukraine.

Objective Voice said:

Isn't that why he has a National Security Counsel? A Joint Chiefs of Staff? An Ambassador Core run by the State Department? Why does he have to be in the White House 24/7?

Click to expand...

The entities you mention have no decision-making authority whatever. They cannot do anything. The decision to act is up to the President, and he cannot give such decisions the necessary attention while lining up shots on the golf course.

Objective Voice said:

Because you (pundits) say so? Give me a break. :roll: Not even FDR...

Click to expand...

FDR worked himself to death because of the war, during which I doubt he took too many vacations.

Objective Voice said:

was in the White House every day during WWII. His Cabinet kept him abreast of events as they happened.

Click to expand...

Physical presence away from the WH may often be required. Leave is taken by most if not all military personnel even during wartime. FDR was officially on one when he died, but was actually reading working papers seconds before the moment of his death. The reason for this leave was not R&R, though- his health was in conspicuous decline with, among other things, blood pressure reaching the horrendous level of 210/110.

See link:

Health and Medical History of President
Franklin Roosevelt

Objective Voice said:

Such has been the case with every President since George Washington except he (and maybe Andrew Jackson) was the only U.S. President to actually be on-station among the fighting as the war/conflict took place.

Click to expand...

GW and AJ enjoyed relatively tranquil terms of office. It appears that the last two years of Obama's will be one of permanent crisis. That should mean permanent attendance on duty.

Re: In light of current events in the Middle East, do you think President Obama is be

Objective Voice said:

We hear the phrase "peace through strength" repeated often from those on the Right (and a few Conservative-Democrats) and to an extent it does work. But only in so far as you can continue to instill "fear" into the hearts and minds of those who may oppose you. This is essentially what those who criticize Pres. Obama's foreign policy are trying to convince people about - that because he's not showing a strong military presence around the world (specifically in key hot spots, i.e., Russia/Ukraine, China/Taiwan and of course all across the ME) - he has a weak foreign policy. While I would agree with the politics of Pres. Obama's "war on terror" as ttwtt78640 describes it, I'd have to say it's a reasonable path to follow given that:

a) our position on national sovereignty, self governance would be in stark conflict with "go over there, impose your will and bomb the hell outta them Jihadist rag-heads";

b) Neither Congress nor the People have the stomach for yet another unprovoked war.

c) regardless of your individual views concerning Pres. Obama's use of military might abroad, any action he takes military can only be limited in scope due to the mature of each conflict as most remain either 1-on-1 skirmishes (i.e., Israel/Palestine; Russia/Ukraine), internal problems (i.e., civil war - Syria; civil unrest - insurgency) or regional (i.e., ISIS/ISIL spewing over the Syrian/Iraqi border).

To say that the world is coming apart because America won't get in the middle of any of it and assert their military might is a very foolish position to take. You're essentially asking the U.S. to jump into every "bar fight" the crops up. (Have you ever jumped head-first into a bar fight? Those things get out of hand in a BIG hurry!)

Click to expand...

Just noticed I had an incomplete sentence in my post. Correction is in bold.

Re: In light of current events in the Middle East, do you think President Obama is be

ttwtt78640 said:

You forget that we are stilll spending billions annually in the ME while often funding both sides of those "regional conflicts". To say that the US is otherwise not involved in the ME "bar fights" simply because we do not include a miilitary "option" in our ME policy is also dishonest.

Click to expand...

ttwtt78640 said:

Obama is now firmly in legacy mode, wishing to be remembered as the POTUS that ended US military action in the ME. Obama is trying to spin that the "war on terror" is over and that these terrorists (fighting the great Jihad) are now simply a ME regional problem and no longer a direct threat to US security. Unless we have aniother "big" terror attack on US soil, or Iran tests a nuke, then I doubt that Obama will do anything but "assist" local groups in the ME to fight each other for power and continue to "negoatiate" with Iran.

Click to expand...

I'd rather he use a smaller military foot print that keeps terrorist groups off-balance ('cause you'll never really destroy them; kill one, another sprouts up in his place) and get those foreign governments most affected by their tyranny involved to clean up their own messes than to send our Armed Forces over there to fight their fight.

So, yes, I'm 100% targeted drone strikes, air strikes and the use of SpecOps. As long as it gets the job done - kill the enemy - without costing many American lives in the process, I'm for it 100%.

Re: In light of current events in the Middle East, do you think President Obama is be

he is busy trying to break par.

Re: In light of current events in the Middle East, do you think President Obama is be

Navy Pride said:

Not to sure of that.........Thanks to Obama we get a lot of oil there........Do you want to pay $10.00 a gallon for gas?

Click to expand...

Our government spend hundreds of billions of dollars, putting our servicemen at risk, and asking our servicemen to kill people vs spending $10 a gallon. I think we could cut back on our driving and/or choose much more efficient automobiles.