• 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

US Conservative

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 11, 2013
Messages
33,522
Reaction score
10,826
Location
Between Athens and Jerusalem
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
obama-saul-loeb-afp-getty-images-080113-lede_0.jpg


As the worlds superpower, this is a question worth being asked.

Internationally are we declining in influence on the world stage?

Do our enemies, rivals, and allies see us as weaker now?

Are we seen as stronger for having Obama as POTUS or are we seen as weaker since Bush's Presidency?

07iht-edvote07-articleLarge-v2.gif
 
Last edited:
obama-saul-loeb-afp-getty-images-080113-lede_0.jpg


As the worlds superpower, this is a question worth being asked.

Internationally are we declining in influence on the world stage?

Do our enemies, rivals, and allies see us as weaker now?

Are we seen as stronger for having Obama as POTUS or are we seen as weaker since Bush's Presidency?

07iht-edvote07-articleLarge-v2.gif

Nah, it's not looking weaker. Obama looks weak, but Bush looked like a dolt.
Democrats are more isolationist and protectionist anyway.
 
I agree with Grand Mal. Obama looks weak, but all of our flying robots raining down death on the citizens of the world makes us look like genuine tough guys.
 
obama-saul-loeb-afp-getty-images-080113-lede_0.jpg


As the worlds superpower, this is a question worth being asked.

Internationally are we declining in influence on the world stage?

Do our enemies, rivals, and allies see us as weaker now?

Are we seen as stronger for having Obama as POTUS or are we seen as weaker since Bush's Presidency?

07iht-edvote07-articleLarge-v2.gif

Here there are lots of public media broadcasts and shows that tell the population that the USA is either almost or already second and increasingly impotent in all but military and that that is dangerous for the world.
 
I agree with Grand Mal. Obama looks weak, but all of our flying robots raining down death on the citizens of the world makes us look like genuine tough guys.

It sure would help , if the man would explain more, why we use the robots and mine so much data and where we want to go.
Most of all he falls down on the Vison Thing. He does not lead well.
 
Emasculating our military (in more ways than one), giving into Iran's demands, slithering out of countries as they fall back into disarray ...why would anyone think differently?
 
Is the US perceived as weaker in influence under Obama?

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.
 
Emasculating our military (in more ways than one), giving into Iran's demands, slithering out of countries as they fall back into disarray ...why would anyone think differently?

Are you kidding me? Our military is not designed to prevent other countries from falling into disarray. Nation building, like peace keeping, are not military matters - our national defense is. Responding to direct attacks upon ourselves and our allies by treaty are plenty enough to deal with. Wasting our time, treasure and lives trying to create (or save) other nations leaves us much weaker to deal with any real threats.
 
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.

Being a superpower simply means having the potential to defend against any attack, not the need to constantly meddle militarily in the affairs of other nations unless they attack us (or our allies). National defense is not the same as playing world policeman. If the most powerful military on the planet cannot advance beyond a stalemate, in over a decade, against an enemy with no air force, navy and a rag tag, at best, army then we have a very bad battle plan.
 
Internationally are we declining in influence on the world stage?

Yes, Russia tells Obama to jump and how high, France told Obama "NO" to the deal with Iran, Iran is getting their nukes, Israel certainly sees us as giving them up, Obama made "Crossing the Red Line" meaningless, Obama lost the war in Afghanistan, he pulled out of Iraq and now AQ is taking ground like never before. Afghanistan will do the same. All our blood and treasure will have meant nothing. Obama campaigned on restoring our standing in the world, instead the opposite has happened. Etc Etc.
 
Being a superpower simply means having the potential to defend against any attack, not the need to constantly meddle militarily in the affairs of other nations unless they attack us (or our allies). National defense is not the same as playing world policeman. If the most powerful military on the planet cannot advance beyond a stalemate, in over a decade, against an enemy with no air force, navy and a rag tag, at best, army then we have a very bad battle plan.

"superpower" is the new code word for empire. our best national defense is to be less dependent on our "enemies."
 
Are you kidding me? Our military is not designed to prevent other countries from falling into disarray. Nation building, like peace keeping, are not military matters - our national defense is. Responding to direct attacks upon ourselves and our allies by treaty are plenty enough to deal with. Wasting our time, treasure and lives trying to create (or save) other nations leaves us much weaker to deal with any real threats.

If we're going to go as far as invading, disposing of the leadership and rebuilding the infrastructure then we have some responsibility to stay as long as it takes.

Like you, I'm not personally in favor of such endeavors but, the damage is done and it is what it is.

It makes us look like chumps when we DO use all of our resources and treasure only to leave in a hurry.
 
If we're going to go as far as invading, disposing of the leadership and rebuilding the infrastructure then we have some responsibility to stay as long as it takes.

Like you, I'm not personally in favor of such endeavors but, the damage is done and it is what it is.

It makes us look like chumps when we DO use all of our resources and treasure only to leave in a hurry.

The police, EMS and fire department have a better plan; once the emergency is gone then so are they, leaving the rebuilding to others. Our military is not trained or equipped to lead nations or to rebuild infrastructure.
 
The police, EMS and fire department have a better plan; once the emergency is gone then so are they, leaving the rebuilding to others. Our military is not trained or equipped to lead nations or to rebuild infrastructure.

Well there are 100s of private contractors in Iraq for example. Our military should just be providing security and that's it, something they are good at.
 
Well there are 100s of private contractors in Iraq for example. Our military should just be providing security and that's it, something they are good at.

Right, since Afghanistan is such a safe and secure place now - after over a decade of US military involvement. ;)
 
Any country that thinks we're "weaker" now should take a crack at invading us. After about a month they'll realize the error of their ways.
 
The perception of weakness I honestly see as a talk-radio/Fox News talking point. That's not to say their followers don't truly believe it to be true.

For me to believe it, I'd want to see some polling data from other countries that say THEY think America is weaker under President Obama. Certainly Al Qaeda doesn't think America is weaker under Obama who's membership is being dropped like flies and cannot get in a car and drive to the grocery store without worrying they'll be killed by a drone attack they didn't even see coming.

The North Korea is acting like they don't care what we think but they were holding American prisoner and testing nuclear weapons BEFORE Obama took office. I don't think who the US President is affects them either way.

Syria and Bashar al-Assad are on crack but what's new? Iraq under Saddam Hussein, another Middle Eastern dictatorship was just as evil and never feared America under previous US presidents despite having military action taken against him. On the other hand Bashar al-Assad as well Iran are dismantling the WMD capabilities under international inspection likely because of fear of American strength under Obama.

Interesting to me the power of the right-wing to media to convince their trusting followers of things that have no basis in truth and in fact in some cases things that contradict facts.
 
Right, since Afghanistan is such a safe and secure place now - after over a decade of US military involvement. ;)
Like I said, I agreed with your reasoning but, to others it make us look weak to start something and not finish the job.. (the premise of this thread)
 
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.
Amen! Helix. There's no place in the US Constitution or the Declaration of Independence stating that we're going to be savior to the world. Time to spend $$$ here! :thumbs:
 
The perception of weakness I honestly see as a talk-radio/Fox News talking point. That's not to say their followers don't truly believe it to be true.

For me to believe it, I'd want to see some polling data from other countries that say THEY think America is weaker under President Obama. Certainly Al Qaeda doesn't think America is weaker under Obama who's membership is being dropped like flies and cannot get in a car and drive to the grocery store without worrying they'll be killed by a drone attack they didn't even see coming.

The North Korea is acting like they don't care what we think but they were holding American prisoner and testing nuclear weapons BEFORE Obama took office. I don't think who the US President is affects them either way.

Syria and Bashar al-Assad are on crack but what's new? Iraq under Saddam Hussein, another Middle Eastern dictatorship was just as evil and never feared America under previous US presidents despite having military action taken against him. On the other hand Bashar al-Assad as well Iran are dismantling the WMD capabilities under international inspection likely because of fear of American strength under Obama.

Interesting to me the power of the right-wing to media to convince their trusting followers of things that have no basis in truth and in fact in some cases things that contradict facts.

Our Military is second to none. That is not the problem. "money talks and BS Walks" is the old axiom. We have been pretty much broke since the beginning of the GW Bush (the first torturer) Great Recession. That is what reduced our power, or more correctly, our World influence. The great and inimitable GW Bush broke the bank and the Fed has been patching the damage with band aids and more bullcrap. It's like holes in a balloon and instead of patching the holes, we keep blowing in more air/confidence/bullcrap into that holy balloon. We keep throwing our money at "Service" Industries/banks that move paper instead of into programs that create labor intensive projects, Renewable Energy beckons. Comes a reckoning, don't ya' know?
 
Personally I voted: "It is unchanged compared to GW Bush." Why? Because at any moment evil factions can find weaknesses and penetrate a country. Just look at Israel; they deal with terrorism everyday no matter who is over the government. Numerous factors determine a president's popularity with this sort of thing. So the graph chart is going to resemble a roller coaster. :shrug:
 
The perception of weakness I honestly see as a talk-radio/Fox News talking point. That's not to say their followers don't truly believe it to be true.

For me to believe it, I'd want to see some polling data from other countries that say THEY think America is weaker under President Obama. Certainly Al Qaeda doesn't think America is weaker under Obama who's membership is being dropped like flies and cannot get in a car and drive to the grocery store without worrying they'll be killed by a drone attack they didn't even see coming.

The North Korea is acting like they don't care what we think but they were holding American prisoner and testing nuclear weapons BEFORE Obama took office. I don't think who the US President is affects them either way.

Syria and Bashar al-Assad are on crack but what's new? Iraq under Saddam Hussein, another Middle Eastern dictatorship was just as evil and never feared America under previous US presidents despite having military action taken against him. On the other hand Bashar al-Assad as well Iran are dismantling the WMD capabilities under international inspection likely because of fear of American strength under Obama.

Interesting to me the power of the right-wing to media to convince their trusting followers of things that have no basis in truth and in fact in some cases things that contradict facts.

No, it's not a talk-radio / Fox News talking point. Here's what some of the international players are actually saying:

President Obama is “chronically incapable” of military strategy and falls far short of his predecessor George W. Bush, according to one of Britain’s most senior military advisors.

Sir Hew Strachan, an advisor to the Chief of the Defense Staff, told The Daily Beast that the United States and Britain were guilty of total strategic failure in Iraq and Afghanistan, and Obama’s attempts to intervene on behalf of the Syrian rebels “has left them in a far worse position than they were before.”
Senior UK Defense Advisor: Obama Is Clueless About ‘What He Wants To Do In The World’

Al-Zaydi wrote that Obama's handling of the Syrian crisis had proven his failure as president, showing him as completely lacking in leadership ability, hesitant and diffident, and overall the weakest president in the history of the United States. He added that it is because of these failings that Obama allowed the crisis in Syria to escalate to the current situation, and that it is he who "caused the wound to become deeper and the bloodshed to continue." He also stated that Obama's hesitant and failed leadership in the Middle East, and especially in Syria, had laid the groundwork for the development of extremism and sectarian violence greater than those of Al-Qaeda.

This column by Al-Zaydi joins a series of recent articles in the Saudi press that attacked America's policy on Syria following the American-Russian agreement to hold an international conference at which a political solution to the Syrian crisis will be sought. For example, an article in the government daily Al-Yawm stated: "The Syrian opposition did not welcome the outcome of the meetings that U.S. State Secretary John Kerry held in Moscow [on May 6, 2013], because [this outcome] is a clear American retreat towards the position of the Russian-Iranian alliance. Considering the crimes of ethnic cleansing that have been perpetrated by Iran's and Assad's killing machine in Baniyas [in early May 2013], the American position is a clear [act of] capitulation to this killing machine at the expense of human rights and America's claims that it supports the freedom of the peoples…" The daily stated further that the U.S. is once again falling into the Iranian trap, as it did in Iraq.[1] Baina Al-Mulhim, a columnist for the government daily Al-Riyadh, asked whether the U.S. had "sold out the Syrian revolution," and wrote: "The crisis of the Syrian revolution changed with the appointment of [John] Kerry as U.S. secretary of state. Kerry is known as a friend of Bashar Al-Assad… and now he is traveling around the world trying to save Assad's regime and to eliminate the so-called 'Al-Qaeda in Syria'…"[2] Tariq Alhomayed, the former editor of Al-Sharq Al-Awsat, wrote that Obama's hesitancy was increasing the bloodshed and the extremism and allowing Russia to play a role in the region.[3]

The following are translated excerpts from Al-Zaydi's column:[4]

"The problem of U.S. President Barack Obama can be summed up in a single word: hesitation. The man is short-sighted, confused and diffident. It seems that the gist of his policy is disagreeing with every position of his predecessor, George W. Bush, and that is quarrelsomeness, not policy.

"This assessment of Obama's policy is not voiced only by his Republican rivals in the U.S., or by those who hate some [aspects] of his global [foreign] policy, but also by some proponents of his own school of thought, like the well-known American author David Ignatius, who recently wrote a critique of the Obama administration's policy that was not confined to foreign [policy] affairs... Summarizing the problematic aspects of Obama's conduct, he said that the public is more afraid of a weak administration than a strong one!
Op-Ed In London Daily Al-Sharq Al-Awsat Attacks Obama: The Weakest President In The History Of The U.S.

So yes, internationally, I think it's safe to say that Obama is considered weak and indecisive leader.

Polling data? Google is your friend:
March 13, 2013
U.S. Leadership Earning Lower Marks Worldwide
Forty-one percent median approval lowest of Obama's presidency
by Julie Ray

WASHINGTON, D.C. -- The image of U.S. leadership worldwide was weaker during President Barack Obama's fourth year in office than at any point during his first administration. Median approval of U.S. leadership across 130 countries stood at 41% in 2012, down measurably from 49% approval in Obama's first year. Despite these poorer scores, approval ratings for the most part remain stronger than they were at the end of the last Bush administration.
pqkyoatsa02tegbm-8cvwa.gif
U.S. Leadership Earning Lower Marks Worldwide

Note the trending that disapproval is up, and approval is down.
 
obama-saul-loeb-afp-getty-images-080113-lede_0.jpg


As the worlds superpower, this is a question worth being asked.

Internationally are we declining in influence on the world stage?

Do our enemies, rivals, and allies see us as weaker now?

Are we seen as stronger for having Obama as POTUS or are we seen as weaker since Bush's Presidency?

07iht-edvote07-articleLarge-v2.gif

Your question reminds me of a joke:

Woman: do these jeans make my ass look big?
Man: no, your big ass makes your ass look big.

The rest of the world is slowly catching up to our economic strength as we continue to slide, and Obama can only look as strong as our country actually is. Let me put it a different way: would you say that Lithuania's president (king, emperor, whatever, I didn't bother looking it up on wiki) acts militarily weak, or would you say that Lithuania doesn't have an especially strong military?
 
If we're going to go as far as invading, disposing of the leadership and rebuilding the infrastructure then we have some responsibility to stay as long as it takes.

Like you, I'm not personally in favor of such endeavors but, the damage is done and it is what it is.

It makes us look like chumps when we DO use all of our resources and treasure only to leave in a hurry.

Rebuilding our infrastructure has essentially been taken over by the culture war. The culture war started out about relatively simple matters like abortion, gun rights and prayer in school, but like a super black hole it has expanded to include nearly every political topic I can think of. And once something is in the culture war all forward momentum comes to a full stop.

In short, we're screwed.
 
No, it's not a talk-radio / Fox News talking point. Here's what some of the international players are actually saying:


Senior UK Defense Advisor: Obama Is Clueless About ‘What He Wants To Do In The World’

Op-Ed In London Daily Al-Sharq Al-Awsat Attacks Obama: The Weakest President In The History Of The U.S.

So yes, internationally, I think it's safe to say that Obama is considered weak and indecisive leader.

Polling data? Google is your friend:
U.S. Leadership Earning Lower Marks Worldwide

Note the trending that disapproval is up, and approval is down.


Is the US perceived as weaker in influence under Obama?

The answer is a resounding "YES"
 
Back
Top Bottom