Are you happy with Barack Obama's Presidency?

Post Reply

How's Obama Doing?

10 - Greatest job, nobody better evar!!!!
2
7%
9 - Great job, but not the best evar...
0
No votes
8 - Awesome job, but not "great."
2
7%
7 - Really good job, but not awesome.
3
11%
6 - Good, but not "really" good.
4
15%
5 - Average
3
11%
4 - Bad, but not "really" bad.
2
7%
3 - Really bad job, but not horrible.
1
4%
2 - Horrible, but not abysmal.
0
No votes
1 - Abysmal, but not the worst evar....
5
19%
0 - Worst President of the US evar!!!!!
1
4%
Don't Know
0
No votes
Don't Care
3
11%
Chili cheese fries, with bacon bits and a chocolate shake.
1
4%
 
Total votes: 27

User avatar
Warren Dew
Posts: 3781
Joined: Thu Aug 19, 2010 1:41 pm
Location: Somerville, MA, USA
Contact:

Re: Are you happy with Barack Obama's Presidency?

Post by Warren Dew » Fri Apr 29, 2011 5:05 am

Coito ergo sum wrote:Actually, Ford and Reagan didn't really mong much war. Reagan's only stint was in Grenada, which wasn't really "war."

GHWBush was certainly not monging any war. The only thing he took action in was the Persian Gulf War, and that received the Security Council stamp of approval after Kuwait was annexed by Hussein. I mean - what ought to have been done? Nothing? We have people claiming Libya and the Ivory Coast wars are just fine and dandy because the UN says they are o.k. and there are "possible" humanitarian issues....but, somehow it's monging war to oust Hussein out of Kuwait strictly in accordance with UN resolutions?
Reagan actually did a lot with respect to the Cold War. The fact that he didn't actually kill that many people while winning it is just a tribute to how well he managed it.

As for the Gulf War, a war that receives Security Council approval is still a war.

User avatar
JimC
The sentimental bloke
Posts: 74293
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 7:58 am
About me: To be serious about gin requires years of dedicated research.
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: Are you happy with Barack Obama's Presidency?

Post by JimC » Fri Apr 29, 2011 5:41 am

Warren Dew wrote:
Coito ergo sum wrote:Actually, Ford and Reagan didn't really mong much war. Reagan's only stint was in Grenada, which wasn't really "war."

GHWBush was certainly not monging any war. The only thing he took action in was the Persian Gulf War, and that received the Security Council stamp of approval after Kuwait was annexed by Hussein. I mean - what ought to have been done? Nothing? We have people claiming Libya and the Ivory Coast wars are just fine and dandy because the UN says they are o.k. and there are "possible" humanitarian issues....but, somehow it's monging war to oust Hussein out of Kuwait strictly in accordance with UN resolutions?
Reagan actually did a lot with respect to the Cold War. The fact that he didn't actually kill that many people while winning it is just a tribute to how well he managed it.

As for the Gulf War, a war that receives Security Council approval is still a war.
But the implication of "war mongering" is more than just engaging in a war, it is actively looking for a fight...

It is a phrase that fits the invasion of Iraq better than the 1st gulf war, I agree with CES about the status of that one...
Nurse, where the fuck's my cardigan?
And my gin!

User avatar
kiki5711
Forever with Ekwok
Posts: 3954
Joined: Fri Feb 12, 2010 11:51 am
Location: Atlanta, Georgia
Contact:

Re: Are you happy with Barack Obama's Presidency?

Post by kiki5711 » Fri Apr 29, 2011 10:47 am

Warren Dew wrote:
Coito ergo sum wrote:Actually, Ford and Reagan didn't really mong much war. Reagan's only stint was in Grenada, which wasn't really "war."

GHWBush was certainly not monging any war. The only thing he took action in was the Persian Gulf War, and that received the Security Council stamp of approval after Kuwait was annexed by Hussein. I mean - what ought to have been done? Nothing? We have people claiming Libya and the Ivory Coast wars are just fine and dandy because the UN says they are o.k. and there are "possible" humanitarian issues....but, somehow it's monging war to oust Hussein out of Kuwait strictly in accordance with UN resolutions?
Reagan actually did a lot with respect to the Cold War. The fact that he didn't actually kill that many people while winning it is just a tribute to how well he managed it.

As for the Gulf War, a war that receives Security Council approval is still a war.
How well "HE" managed it????

Warren, you're an ex military guy, you really believe that REGAN managed the war? Com'n...he knows about as much as you and me how to manage a war!
There are EXPERIENCED military people who managed the war not him.

Coito ergo sum
Posts: 32040
Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 2:03 pm
Contact:

Re: Are you happy with Barack Obama's Presidency?

Post by Coito ergo sum » Fri Apr 29, 2011 11:31 am

JimC wrote:
Warren Dew wrote:
Coito ergo sum wrote:Actually, Ford and Reagan didn't really mong much war. Reagan's only stint was in Grenada, which wasn't really "war."

GHWBush was certainly not monging any war. The only thing he took action in was the Persian Gulf War, and that received the Security Council stamp of approval after Kuwait was annexed by Hussein. I mean - what ought to have been done? Nothing? We have people claiming Libya and the Ivory Coast wars are just fine and dandy because the UN says they are o.k. and there are "possible" humanitarian issues....but, somehow it's monging war to oust Hussein out of Kuwait strictly in accordance with UN resolutions?
Reagan actually did a lot with respect to the Cold War. The fact that he didn't actually kill that many people while winning it is just a tribute to how well he managed it.

As for the Gulf War, a war that receives Security Council approval is still a war.
But the implication of "war mongering" is more than just engaging in a war, it is actively looking for a fight...

It is a phrase that fits the invasion of Iraq better than the 1st gulf war, I agree with CES about the status of that one...
A monger is one who deals or trades in a certain commodity. A fishmonger is the most common example. A warmonger is one who acts like a dealer or tradesman in war. Essentially, it's one who promotes a certain activity. A rumormonger is another example. A warmonger actively promotes war.

From everything I have read and seen of Reagan, his overarching goal was the elimination of all nuclear weapons and the prevention of war. He was at one point in face to face negotiations with the Soviets and the elimination of all American and Soviet nuclear weapons was on the table. Reagan was willing to agree to eliminate all nuclear arms - not just reduce - eliminate. The Soviets placed a condition on the elimination of nuclear weapons - Reagan had to agree to abandon missile defense. Reagan wasn't prepared to do that.

Over 300 Marines were killed in Lebanon early in Reagan's administration - casus belli for sure. We pulled out of Lebanon instead of going to war there. Probably an unfortunate move, because the country ever since has been overrun by the likes of Hizb-Allah.

Naturally, his administration did some wrong things - Nicaragua, for example. However, we can rest assured that if it was a Democratic President, Nicaragua would have been characterized as a humanitarian intervention....

User avatar
Warren Dew
Posts: 3781
Joined: Thu Aug 19, 2010 1:41 pm
Location: Somerville, MA, USA
Contact:

Re: Are you happy with Barack Obama's Presidency?

Post by Warren Dew » Sat Apr 30, 2011 6:34 am

JimC wrote:But the implication of "war mongering" is more than just engaging in a war, it is actively looking for a fight...

It is a phrase that fits the invasion of Iraq better than the 1st gulf war, I agree with CES about the status of that one...
I think the opposite.

Neither Iraq nor Kuwait were U.S. allies at the time of the Gulf War. We had zero legitimate excuse to intervene. It was pure imperialism on the part of the west, intervening because one result was more convenient to us than another. Nor did we ever conclude a peace treaty; rather, we just dropped the level of hostilities down from active fighting to "mere" imposition of a crippling blockade that allowed our governments to kill hundreds of thousands, likely millions, of Iraqi civilians without taking political heat.

The Iraq War was really just a continuation of the same war, rather than actively starting a new fight. We ramped the blockade back up to active fighting in an attempt to remove the regime and end the war, rather than letting it drag on forever. We killed more hundreds of thousands, but at least that did eventually end, rather than continuing indefinitely.

User avatar
Warren Dew
Posts: 3781
Joined: Thu Aug 19, 2010 1:41 pm
Location: Somerville, MA, USA
Contact:

Re: Are you happy with Barack Obama's Presidency?

Post by Warren Dew » Sat Apr 30, 2011 6:57 am

kiki5711 wrote:How well "HE" managed it????

Warren, you're an ex military guy, you really believe that REGAN managed the war? Com'n...he knows about as much as you and me how to manage a war!
There are EXPERIENCED military people who managed the war not him.
First off, Regan, five letters, was treasury secretary. Reagan, six letters, was the President.

As to your main point - not only was I a military guy, Reagan was Commander in Chief for most of my time in the military. I know a lot about how he managed the cold war.

The military does not manage entire wars, because wars have political and economic elements, and not just military elements. The military does handle the actual combat, as well as other operations such as for example the tapping of undersea Soviet cables during the Reagan administration, but the President handles the political aspects and influences the economic aspects.

With respect to the economic aspects, Reagan was brilliant in making sure we used a Cold War strategy that leveraged the economic strength of the free market U.S. system over the Communist Russian system. In large part, the whole "Peace Shield" ballistic missile defense system was an economic play. Reagan actually offered to share the entire program with the Soviets if the Soviets would pay their share - but the Soviets couldn't agree, because their economy simply couldn't support the burden. Ultimately they had to choose between bankrupting their economy to match our progress, or facing an insurmountable strategic disadvantage - or giving up on their Communist economic system, which is what they ultimately did.

Reagan was also good about the political aspects. When faced with a proposal like the undersea cable tapping, Reagan generally accepted the military's more expert assessments of what was possible and what was not rather than micromanaging, was willing to approve some audacious programs like that one, and most importantly, was willing to keep the stuff secret and not leak it.

So yes, Reagan won the cold war. Yes, the military also had a big part in it, but ultimately it all depended on the man at the top, and that man was Reagan.

User avatar
JimC
The sentimental bloke
Posts: 74293
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 7:58 am
About me: To be serious about gin requires years of dedicated research.
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: Are you happy with Barack Obama's Presidency?

Post by JimC » Sat Apr 30, 2011 7:00 am

Warren Dew wrote:
JimC wrote:But the implication of "war mongering" is more than just engaging in a war, it is actively looking for a fight...

It is a phrase that fits the invasion of Iraq better than the 1st gulf war, I agree with CES about the status of that one...
I think the opposite.

Neither Iraq nor Kuwait were U.S. allies at the time of the Gulf War. We had zero legitimate excuse to intervene. It was pure imperialism on the part of the west, intervening because one result was more convenient to us than another. Nor did we ever conclude a peace treaty; rather, we just dropped the level of hostilities down from active fighting to "mere" imposition of a crippling blockade that allowed our governments to kill hundreds of thousands, likely millions, of Iraqi civilians without taking political heat.

The Iraq War was really just a continuation of the same war, rather than actively starting a new fight. We ramped the blockade back up to active fighting in an attempt to remove the regime and end the war, rather than letting it drag on forever. We killed more hundreds of thousands, but at least that did eventually end, rather than continuing indefinitely.
WTF!

One country invaded another, blatantly and with malice aforethought.

The UN determined that Saddam should cease and desist, and the thumbed his nose at the entire international community, saying he would retain the spoils of war.

The UN authorised military action in accordance with international law, to right a clear wrong, and the US and its allies got on with the job.

A hell of a lot more clear-cut than many other military adventures since WW2...

I concede that the messy and inconclusive ending, with no peace treaty, was problematic for many reasons.
Nurse, where the fuck's my cardigan?
And my gin!

User avatar
kiki5711
Forever with Ekwok
Posts: 3954
Joined: Fri Feb 12, 2010 11:51 am
Location: Atlanta, Georgia
Contact:

Re: Are you happy with Barack Obama's Presidency?

Post by kiki5711 » Sat Apr 30, 2011 9:54 am

Warren Dew wrote:
kiki5711 wrote:How well "HE" managed it????

Warren, you're an ex military guy, you really believe that REGAN managed the war? Com'n...he knows about as much as you and me how to manage a war!
There are EXPERIENCED military people who managed the war not him.
First off, Regan, five letters, was treasury secretary. Reagan, six letters, was the President.

As to your main point - not only was I a military guy, Reagan was Commander in Chief for most of my time in the military. I know a lot about how he managed the cold war.

The military does not manage entire wars, because wars have political and economic elements, and not just military elements. The military does handle the actual combat, as well as other operations such as for example the tapping of undersea Soviet cables during the Reagan administration, but the President handles the political aspects and influences the economic aspects.

With respect to the economic aspects, Reagan was brilliant in making sure we used a Cold War strategy that leveraged the economic strength of the free market U.S. system over the Communist Russian system. In large part, the whole "Peace Shield" ballistic missile defense system was an economic play. Reagan actually offered to share the entire program with the Soviets if the Soviets would pay their share - but the Soviets couldn't agree, because their economy simply couldn't support the burden. Ultimately they had to choose between bankrupting their economy to match our progress, or facing an insurmountable strategic disadvantage - or giving up on their Communist economic system, which is what they ultimately did.

Reagan was also good about the political aspects. When faced with a proposal like the undersea cable tapping, Reagan generally accepted the military's more expert assessments of what was possible and what was not rather than micromanaging, was willing to approve some audacious programs like that one, and most importantly, was willing to keep the stuff secret and not leak it.

So yes, Reagan won the cold war. Yes, the military also had a big part in it, but ultimately it all depended on the man at the top, and that man was Reagan.
I'm sorry to hear that. Pretty unsettling actually.

Coito ergo sum
Posts: 32040
Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 2:03 pm
Contact:

Re: Are you happy with Barack Obama's Presidency?

Post by Coito ergo sum » Fri Oct 21, 2011 6:27 pm

Nice job on Iraq! Troops coming home at the end of the year - down to zero from the current 40,000, and a stable functioning Parliamentary democracy is in effect! Win!
President Barack Obama hailed the lifting of the "dark tyranny" over Libya after the new government confirmed Muammar Gaddafi had been killed, issuing a warning to other dictators in the Middle East – and particularly Syria – that they could be next.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/oc ... th-gaddafi

Obama puts on his best Texas swagger....we got Hussein a while back...we got Osama...we got Qadafiduck.... you'd best mind yer p's and q's you varmints! You're next!

Give that man a Nobel Peace Prize!

User avatar
MattShizzle
Posts: 466
Joined: Sat Jul 23, 2011 3:08 am
Contact:

Re: Are you happy with Barack Obama's Presidency?

Post by MattShizzle » Fri Oct 21, 2011 6:44 pm

6 - not standing up the the rethugs enough and could do more for his non-moderate left base (I voted for him in the primary thinking Hillary was too moderate.)

User avatar
MattShizzle
Posts: 466
Joined: Sat Jul 23, 2011 3:08 am
Contact:

Re: Are you happy with Barack Obama's Presidency?

Post by MattShizzle » Fri Oct 21, 2011 6:45 pm

And Reagan was a terrible president:

Image

User avatar
sandinista
Posts: 2546
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 9:15 pm
About me: It’s a plot, but busta can you tell me who’s greedier?
Big corporations, the pigs or the media?
Contact:

Re: Are you happy with Barack Obama's Presidency?

Post by sandinista » Fri Oct 21, 2011 8:38 pm

MattShizzle wrote:And Reagan was a terrible president:

Image
yep...Reagan was a terrorist. As for obama, doesn't really matter just a figurehead anyway, could be anyone sitting there.
Our struggle is not against actual corrupt individuals, but against those in power in general, against their authority, against the global order and the ideological mystification which sustains it.

Coito ergo sum
Posts: 32040
Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 2:03 pm
Contact:

Re: Are you happy with Barack Obama's Presidency?

Post by Coito ergo sum » Fri Oct 21, 2011 8:51 pm

Then why don't you call Obama a terrorist, too?

User avatar
Jason
Destroyer of words
Posts: 17782
Joined: Sat Apr 16, 2011 12:46 pm
Contact:

Re: Are you happy with Barack Obama's Presidency?

Post by Jason » Fri Oct 21, 2011 9:40 pm

I might be wrong, but I think people mostly get that the US president is just a figurehead - that's why it's always heard in the news that the X administration did this or that.

User avatar
Jason
Destroyer of words
Posts: 17782
Joined: Sat Apr 16, 2011 12:46 pm
Contact:

Re: Are you happy with Barack Obama's Presidency?

Post by Jason » Fri Oct 21, 2011 9:41 pm

Coito ergo sum wrote:Then why don't you call Obama a terrorist, too?
Because that'd be racist? :teef:

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 19 guests