• 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 Obama viewed as "Weak" by Foreign Leaders?

Is Obama viewed as "Weak" by Foreign Leaders?


  • Total voters
    31
Is Obama viewed as "Weak" by Foreign Leaders?


PpUniIT.jpg

ceA4daa.jpg

lL279Q8.jpg

1PQTkG3.png

l4fZUhg.jpg

He's the weakest President we've had since Carter.
 
Absolutely. Obama should have committed US forces (possibly a clone army) to Ukraine to fight the separatists, and he should be nuking both the entire Middle East (except Israel) and Moscow as we speak.

No, he should be apologizing for the existence of the USA more. He's slacked off on that lately.
 
You seriously think that Putin and Netenyahu see Obama as a "rational actor"? You seriously think the Saudis or the Chinese who rushed Snowden off to Russia from Hong Kong, you seriously think they see Obama as a "rational actor"?

An insane Zionist, a despotic oligarch, a Red communist, and a closet Islamist walk in to a bar...

Oh. You mean you weren't telling a stupid joke?

For real though, if some of the most ideologically crooked leaders on the planet look at Obama as an irrational actor, he's doing something right.

Obama sux, no argument there, but you just gave pretty much the worst example possible of why he sux.
 
I think the operative word in your poll is "leader" - not the adjective "weak".

Many don't see Obama as a leader - not a person who can marshal opinion behind a goal he has in foreign policy. His one leadership move, in Syria, was destroyed by Russia and other players who weren't about to follow Obama's lead.

The world is a less stable place without strong, American leadership.
 
He's the weakest President we've had since Carter.

Not in his view. The problem is people keep assuming he shares the policies of the USA that have been in existence for decades and even centuries. He doesn't. He sees the USA's past as fundamentally evil, and this is the same view he has of Christians and Western powers.

In his view, he is using his power to undo all the evils of the USA, the West, Jews and Christians that he can. Thus, what you see as weakness he sees as his strength.

Why do people just assume he opposed ISIS but it too weak to act? A more rational conclusion is that he doesn't oppose ISIS at all. Rather, that he supports Muslim insurgents purging the evil Christians and Jews from their presence and in overthrowing the evil governments that exist with the support of the USA and Western powers.

More specifically, there is NO reason to assume Obama does not proactively support the creation of new Muslim super powers including with nuclear weapons so they can finally shake off the evil oppression and persecutions of the evil Western colonial powers. He sees is actions as uniquely strong, not as weakness.

Nor any reason to believe he opposes Russia deposing any pro-Western East European country or anywhere else.
 
Rational, you call exchanging 5 terrorists for a deserter is rational. And then tells the American people he served the United States with honor and distinction.

Guy, we do whatever's necessary to bring our soldiers home...even if they were dirtbags. If we didn't bring him home, then the other soldiers would wonder, "would they do whatever it took to bring me home, or would they leave me to rot?" THAT ONE FACT - proving to every soldier everywhere that we will do whatever it takes to bring them home - more than anything else, is why we HAD to get him.

Besides, prisoner swaps have been done all throughout history. Not too long ago the Israelis traded a freaking THOUSAND Palestinians for one of their own. So get over yourself, guy.

And yeah, it sure looks like he was a deserter...but until he is convicted and declared guilty at a court-martial, he is NOT a deserter (or don't you believe in the rule of law?). If he's guilty, then he will get what's coming to him - and Leavenworth is no picnic.
 
Tell that to Osama bin Laden and Muammar Gaddafi.... Oh, wait

Of which he had little to do with Osama and nothing to do with Gaddafi. Unless you want to debate whether Osama is really at the bottom of a sea.
 
Guy, we do whatever's necessary to bring our soldiers home...even if they were dirtbags. If we didn't bring him home, then the other soldiers would wonder, "would they do whatever it took to bring me home, or would they leave me to rot?" THAT ONE FACT - proving to every soldier everywhere that we will do whatever it takes to bring them home - more than anything else, is why we HAD to get him.

Besides, prisoner swaps have been done all throughout history. Not too long ago the Israelis traded a freaking THOUSAND Palestinians for one of their own. So get over yourself, guy.

And yeah, it sure looks like he was a deserter...but until he is convicted and declared guilty at a court-martial, he is NOT a deserter (or don't you believe in the rule of law?). If he's guilty, then he will get what's coming to him - and Leavenworth is no picnic.

No, we don't do that. The USA government historically has rarely agreed to swapping military prisoners. This was first refused by Abraham Lincoln. His reasoning is that if prisoners are swapped the war goes on forever.

If the army losing a battle could merely surrender, then be released on a prisoner swap to then go back into combat, there would be no such thing as destroying the enemy.

It also is an incentive to take prisoners, including civilians, if this is a way to get your own leaders and troops back.

The claim that we do anything to get our soldiers back is outright false and even militarily absurd.
 
Lol !!

Destabilizing the Middle east wasn't rational, it was stupid and irresponsible as all get out.

From Egypts " Arab Spring " to Lybia to Isis Obama's a walking Foreign Policy disaster.

Lol...a " rational actor " ? You apologist crack me up.

Yeah, blame the guy who tried to put the fire out instead of the guy who set the doggone place on fire to begin with! Good job, guy!
 
You seriously think that Putin and Netenyahu see Obama as a "rational actor"? You seriously think the Saudis or the Chinese who rushed Snowden off to Russia from Hong Kong, you seriously think they see Obama as a "rational actor"?

A heck of a lot more rational than the guy who came before him, yes.
 
I'm sorry but a significant number of Americans wanted him to pull out of Iraq, we're the ones that told Obama how high to jump. As to the rest, along with plenty of company, you're still in denial about the effects of a uni-polar world, and the determination of others to combat it.

Yeah all the liberals and now we have the middle east in flames and Iran on the march and Putin telling Obama how high to jump. Obama is the worst ever foreign policy president in US history, for that matter he also holds the record for failed domestic policy.
 
No. He's seen what's referred to as a "rational actor", meaning that he doesn't do stupid crap. It's just that most of the world's leaders know he's got to deal with a Congress controlled by irrational actors, for whom stupid crap is a way of life e.g. passing fifty-odd bills to try to take away what the rest of the free world takes for granted - access to quality health insurance for those who can't afford it.

Nobody sees Obama a rational actor. He has demonstrated a disdain and ignorance about foreign policy and the use of American power. He's demonstrated that he's an unreliable ally and a push over to our enemies.
 
Guy, we do whatever's necessary to bring our soldiers home...even if they were dirtbags. If we didn't bring him home, then the other soldiers would wonder, "would they do whatever it took to bring me home, or would they leave me to rot?" THAT ONE FACT - proving to every soldier everywhere that we will do whatever it takes to bring them home - more than anything else, is why we HAD to get him.

Besides, prisoner swaps have been done all throughout history. Not too long ago the Israelis traded a freaking THOUSAND Palestinians for one of their own. So get over yourself, guy.

And yeah, it sure looks like he was a deserter...but until he is convicted and declared guilty at a court-martial, he is NOT a deserter (or don't you believe in the rule of law?). If he's guilty, then he will get what's coming to him - and Leavenworth is no picnic.

You have it all wrong, he left and went to the other side of the battle, at that point he is not one of our own. Further Obama lied to the American people that he served the United States with honor and distinction. And because of his deserting we had American Solders die looking for his ass. He should go before a firing squad.

Last he was known to be a deserter way before the swap ever took place.
 
Quit living the fantasy that the US could turn Iraq or any other Middle East country into an Eden.

Just 18 percent of Americans think the result of the war in Iraq was worth the loss of American lives and other costs of attacking Iraq, the lowest percentage ever recorded in CBS News Polls. Seventy-five percent do not think the Iraq War was worth it, up eight percentage points since 2011 (just before all U.S. troops were removed), and up 30 points since August 2003.

Most Americans say Iraq war wasn't worth the costs: Poll - CBS News
 
Nobody sees Obama a rational actor. He has demonstrated a disdain and ignorance about foreign policy and the use of American power. He's demonstrated that he's an unreliable ally and a push over to our enemies.

That's not universally agreed upon.
 
That's not universally agreed upon.

We have one ally in the Middle East and our relationship with them has never been worse. He supported the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, and reportedly has member in his administration. Their reign in Egypt lasted a year and now Mohammad Morsi is headed to prison and many Muslim Brotherhood members have been arrested. He supported the overthrow of Gadaffi and now Libya is a hotbed of Islamofascism. Don't make me describe how he's bending over and letting Iran have fun with his ass. He said Yemen was a great example of his leading from behind, now we are sending war ships there. He said ISIS was the JV, now they are conducting a genocide against Coptic Christians and hold lots of area in Syria and Iraq. He was totally outmaneuvered in Syria by Putin and now Russia has more influence in the Middle east than America. Everything he touches internationally turns to ****.


You can say that not everyone shares that opinion but those who don't need to pay attention.
 
No, we don't do that. The USA government historically has rarely agreed to swapping military prisoners. This was first refused by Abraham Lincoln. His reasoning is that if prisoners are swapped the war goes on forever.

You mean George Washington was a no-good Kenyan/Muslim/Nazi/Socialist like Obama just 'cause he swapped prisoners with the Redcoats during the Revolutionary War?

If the army losing a battle could merely surrender, then be released on a prisoner swap to then go back into combat, there would be no such thing as destroying the enemy.

It also is an incentive to take prisoners, including civilians, if this is a way to get your own leaders and troops back.

The claim that we do anything to get our soldiers back is outright false and even militarily absurd.

Then I suggest you go read some 'Merican history, guy. And it makes doggone good sense to the grunt on the ground who KNOWS - because of prisoner swaps just like Bergdahl's - that America WILL come and get him, one way or another.
 
I travel extensively in Europe but do not hob-nob with the leadership - only with ordinary people.

Almost universally, when the name "Obama" is mentioned, there are giggles. I asked one pub owner in North Yorkshire why the giggles and he told me it was out of politeness because I was regarded as a "regular" (I go there 2-3 times on each visit, usually twice a year). Out of politeness they refrain from outright laughter.

Folks in North Yorkshire are not generally known for being "gentle" so I appreciate their restraint.
 
We have one ally in the Middle East and our relationship with them has never been worse. He supported the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, and reportedly has member in his administration. Their reign in Egypt lasted a year and now Mohammad Morsi is headed to prison and many Muslim Brotherhood members have been arrested. He supported the overthrow of Gadaffi and now Libya is a hotbed of Islamofascism. Don't make me describe how he's bending over and letting Iran have fun with his ass. He said Yemen was a great example of his leading from behind, now we are sending war ships there. He said ISIS was the JV, now they are conducting a genocide against Coptic Christians and hold lots of area in Syria and Iraq. He was totally outmaneuvered in Syria by Putin and now Russia has more influence in the Middle east than America. Everything he touches internationally turns to ****.


You can say that not everyone shares that opinion but those who don't need to pay attention.

Indeed, Obama's policies in Egypt, Libya and Syria are failures, just as Bush's Iraq policy is a failure. But Putin didn't outsmart Obama in Syria. Obama sought a resolution for the use of force in Syria (which I'm sure would have delighted you) dispatching Clinton three times to the UN, all three times China and Russia said NO! The British parliament pulled its support for military action in Syria, 70% of Americans opposed it and Obama couldn't get congress to authorize it. So what would you have had Obama do, declare that he's the decider, act the belligerent, and attack another Middle East country that had not attacked us? Don't answer that.
 
Indeed, Obama's policies in Egypt, Libya and Syria are failures, just as Bush's Iraq policy is a failure. But Putin didn't outsmart Obama in Syria. Obama sought a resolution for the use of force in Syria (which I'm sure would have delighted you) dispatching Clinton three times to the UN, all three times China and Russia said NO! The British parliament pulled its support for military action in Syria, 70% of Americans opposed it and Obama couldn't get congress to authorize it. So what would you have had Obama do, declare that he's the decider, act the belligerent, and attack another Middle East country that had not attacked us? Don't answer that.

Russia's outmaneuvering Obama in Syria was the culmination of an incoherent foreign policy in general whose incoherence, or non-existent policy started the day he took office.
 
I travel extensively in Europe but do not hob-nob with the leadership - only with ordinary people.

Almost universally, when the name "Obama" is mentioned, there are giggles. I asked one pub owner in North Yorkshire why the giggles and he told me it was out of politeness because I was regarded as a "regular" (I go there 2-3 times on each visit, usually twice a year). Out of politeness they refrain from outright laughter.

Folks in North Yorkshire are not generally known for being "gentle" so I appreciate their restraint.

This fantasy that Obama is universally liked world-wide needs to be debunked.

I have yet to talk to anybody in Mexico that has a favorable opinion of him.
 
could not say it better
 
Seriously is the prez suppose to send our troops everywhere to get what he wants ..we cant go to war with everyone that don't like us and we cant please every nation....but he wont let anyone Israel or Russia tell us what to do.....sorry
 
at least obama did not get 4000+ American soldiers killed for absolutely nothing in iraq...daaaaa well maybe cheney got control of the oil and we just don't know it...hmmmmm
 
Back
Top Bottom