• 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?

  • Yes he's viewwed as weak by foreign leaders

    Votes: 21 67.7%

  • No he's not viewed as weak by foreign leaders

    Votes: 10 32.3%
  • Total voters
    31
I sure would like to know how you would handle the things going around in the world...maybe 25000 dead merican soldiers or a nuclear bomb dropped on someone
 
Ryan5 said:
Is Obama viewed as "Weak" by Foreign Leaders?

]
Click to expand...

So I assume one must be a foreign leader to answer this poll, as its silly to ask a bunch of lay people, most of which have never left the continent, to tell us what a foreign leader thinks...

So, in answering, do we list what country we lead?

People on DP are more than happy to comment on things they know nothing about. Congratulations for starting a thread that actually asks them to do so.
 
Last edited:
Beetle said:
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.
Click to expand...

I had similar experience traveling about Europe during the Bush administration. There's another thread up pointing out a poll that shows the US with the highest global regard, and Russia with the lowest, mostly Europeans effecting the poll.
 
sawdust said:
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.
Click to expand...

You completely ignored the post you quoted and repeated your Putin meme. Putin prevented another senseless American war in the ME, to which I'm delighted.
 
pbrauer said:
Tell that to Osama bin Laden and Muammar Gaddafi.... Oh, wait
Click to expand...

Obama should have supported Gadaffi. While he was not a friend of the US, at the time of his death he was not hostile to our interests. The Libyan people ousted him, not Obama in any event. Now Libya can be considered to be another of Obama's Middle East failures. Bin Laden was not a world leader which brings me to this.

What world leaders see Obama as a strong leader and why? Drone strikes are not leadership by the way.
 
sawdust said:
Obama should have supported Gadaffi. While he was not a friend of the US, at the time of his death he was not hostile to our interests. The Libyan people ousted him, not Obama in any event. Now Libya can be considered to be another of Obama's Middle East failures. Bin Laden was not a world leader which brings me to this.

What world leaders see Obama as a strong leader and why? Drone strikes are not leadership by the way.
Click to expand...

Lol. Without US/NATO bombing campaign and SOF's on the ground, the "Libyan people" wouldn't have done dick.
 
sawdust said:
Obama should have supported Gadaffi. While he was not a friend of the US, at the time of his death he was not hostile to our interests. The Libyan people ousted him, not Obama in any event. Now Libya can be considered to be another of Obama's Middle East failures. Bin Laden was not a world leader which brings me to this.

What world leaders see Obama as a strong leader and why? Drone strikes are not leadership by the way.
Click to expand...

Who the f cares what other leaders think of Obama? Why do you?

I could care less.

No one is invading America anytime soon, that is all that matters.

Walk softly and carry a big stick...and Obama carries the most powerful stick in world history. Only an insecure egotist needs him to strut around like a babbling rooster.
 
Montecresto said:
You completely ignored the post you quoted and repeated your Putin meme. Putin prevented another senseless American war in the ME, to which I'm delighted.
Click to expand...

I don't know how Obama would have reacted in Syria without Russian involvement. Truth be told, I don't know why Assad is on the enemies list. He's not a good guy, but the world is full of not good guys.

In any event, I think that Obama would have chosen to do nothing in Syria but blather. Obama's foreign policy consists of supporting radical Islamists, opposing secular leaders and not involving our military in any activity which involves taking enemy captives. He would much rather drone them and leave their bodies on the ground and not in GITMO which he is trying to empty so he can close. On it's best day his foreign policy is incoherent and on it's worse non existent.

Letterman said it best. Obama will not start a war unless ISIS attacks a golf coarse.
 
sawdust said:
I don't know how Obama would have reacted in Syria without Russian involvement. Truth be told, I don't know why Assad is on the enemies list. He's not a good guy, but the world is full of not good guys.

In any event, I think that Obama would have chosen to do nothing in Syria but blather. Obama's foreign policy consists of supporting radical Islamists, opposing secular leaders and not involving our military in any activity which involves taking enemy captives. He would much rather drone them and leave their bodies on the ground and not in GITMO which he is trying to empty so he can close. On it's best day his foreign policy is incoherent and on it's worse non existent.

Letterman said it best. Obama will not start a war unless ISIS attacks a golf coarse.
Click to expand...

Regime change in Syria is a long time USFP goal, that far predates Obama. Of course you can know what Obama would have done in Syria were it not for Russian (and Chinese don't forget) obstruction. I've only told you three times that Obama dispatched Clinton to the UN on three occasions to secure a UNSCR for the use of force in Syria, FORCE, by our military is what Obama's reaction would have been in Syria. Thanks to Russia and China, that was avoided.
 
Montecresto said:
Lol. Without US/NATO bombing campaign and SOF's on the ground, the "Libyan people" wouldn't have done dick.
Click to expand...

Libya is a tribal society and the tribes have been at odds forever. There were no allied forces on the ground and while NATO conducted an air campaign against Libyan military, the fighting on the ground was by Libyan rebels. Bottom line, Libya would be a much better place in the world community had Gadaffi remained in power and the country not seized by Isalmofascists.
 
DA60 said:
Who the f cares what other leaders think of Obama? Why do you?

I could care less.

No one is invading America anytime soon, that is all that matters.

Walk softly and carry a big stick...and Obama carries the most powerful stick in world history. Only an insecure egotist needs him to strut around like a babbling rooster.
Click to expand...

Let me take a stab at this. Read the title of the thread and ask yourself one question. Why did you post on it to say who cares?

I can tell you why it matters. We live in a global economy and every nation has an impact, large or small on the world economy. When oil fields are seized or destroyed anywhere in the world, it affects oil prices, which affects food prices which affects world hunger. If you are so short sighted to believe that international relations and foreign policy only affects wether or not we are attacked, you could work in Obama's State Department.
 
sawdust said:
Libya is a tribal society and the tribes have been at odds forever. There were no allied forces on the ground and while NATO conducted an air campaign against Libyan military, the fighting on the ground was by Libyan rebels. Bottom line, Libya would be a much better place in the world community had Gadaffi remained in power and the country not seized by Isalmofascists.
Click to expand...

We'll of course Libya would be better off with Gaddafi in power, as would Iraq with Hussein, Egypt with Mubarak, and Syria with Assad, that's a given. But Gaddafi would not have been toppled without US intervention, period!

Politics | Wed Mar 30, 2011 6:16pm EDT Related: WORLD, POLITICS, UNITED NATIONS, LIBYA
Exclusive: Obama authorizes secret help for Libya rebels
WASHINGTON | BY MARK HOSENBALL

Exclusive: Obama authorizes secret help for Libya rebels | Reuters
 
Montecresto said:
Regime change in Syria is a long time USFP goal, that far predates Obama. Of course you can know what Obama would have done in Syria were it not for Russian (and Chinese don't forget) obstruction. I've only told you three times that Obama dispatched Clinton to the UN on three occasions to secure a UNSCR for the use of force in Syria, FORCE, by our military is what Obama's reaction would have been in Syria. Thanks to Russia and China, that was avoided.
Click to expand...

Understand this, it doesn't matter to me how many times you repeat yourself. I don't believe that Obama would do anything other than threaten the use of force to use as a negotiation tactic. If force is ever used, it would have been the weak use of force currently employed against ISIS or a continuation of the drone wars Obama has used from the Philippines to Yemen and Somalia.

Regardless of meaningless UN proclamations, Obama has no stomach for the initiation of the use of ground forces. Russia was an excuse, not a reason, but Russia came out looking stronger as a result and they are emboldened in the Middle East as a result.
 
Montecresto said:
We'll of course Libya would be better off with Gaddafi in power, as would Iraq with Hussein, Egypt with Mubarak, and Syria with Assad, that's a given. But Gaddafi would not have been toppled without US intervention, period!

Politics | Wed Mar 30, 2011 6:16pm EDT Related: WORLD, POLITICS, UNITED NATIONS, LIBYA
Exclusive: Obama authorizes secret help for Libya rebels
WASHINGTON | BY MARK HOSENBALL

Exclusive: Obama authorizes secret help for Libya rebels | Reuters
Click to expand...

I've said before, and on this we can agree. The Middle East would be a much better place if Bush hadn't removed Hussein and Obama hadn't helped in the removal of Gaddafi, Mubarak and had supported Hadi. Many Middle Eastern countries are still tribal and as far as I'm concerned need strong men or tyrants to control the tibes.
 
sawdust said:
Understand this, it doesn't matter to me how many times you repeat yourself. I don't believe that Obama would do anything other than threaten the use of force to use as a negotiation tactic. If force is ever used, it would have been the weak use of force currently employed against ISIS or a continuation of the drone wars Obama has used from the Philippines to Yemen and Somalia.

Regardless of meaningless UN proclamations, Obama has no stomach for the initiation of the use of ground forces. Russia was an excuse, not a reason, but Russia came out looking stronger as a result and they are emboldened in the Middle East as a result.
Click to expand...

To your later point, good!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom