Solved

OBAMA: THE WEAKEST PRESIDENT IN HISTORY?

Posted on 2011-03-18
105
125 Views
Last Modified: 2012-05-11
Do you think Obama is the weakest president ever?

The article below makes some pretty strong arguments:
http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/235196/Barack-Obama-The-Weakest-President-in-history-

0
Comment
Question by:carsRST
  • 30
  • 20
  • 15
  • +9
105 Comments
 
LVL 27

Accepted Solution

by:
BigRat earned 7 total points
ID: 35166149
>>Since then, other countries – most notably Britain and France – have been calling for some kind of intervention.

Quite right, and probably the correct thing to do, but the UK is in no position to do anything, perhaps France could run up some sort of token effort, whilst the remaining European governments have misjudged the situation or are simply worried about costs and manpower (both in the case of Germany), so to blame Obama for a "lack of decision" is unfair. And what's Libya to the US? If anything it is a European or African problem.

As far as US domestic policy is concerned the article may be correct, but I don't normally like to criticise internal affaires. Guantanamo is another issue where Obama was outsmarted.

Bahrain is a real American nightmare, with Ms Clinton there in January praising the country's progress and now this!

But I think that the article betrays itself with this :-

Some tempering of America’s role as the world’s No1 busybody may be no bad thing but under Obama the US appears to be heading towards isolationism

They can't have it both ways!

>>Economically, the US is in big trouble but the national debt is not shrinking.

Quite. I have commented on this here many times, even suggested what really must be done, but have obtained a tirade of "we can't do that" "You don't understand simple economics" (and me from Luxembourg!) and so on. A president is not capable of fighting both major parties at the same time.

No, he's certainly not the GREAT president that many wanted him to be (I mean anything was far better than Bush and Rumbold), but the worst president he is not yet. Perhaps a Tea Pot Dome affaire would help?
0
 
LVL 27

Expert Comment

by:BigRat
ID: 35166311
BTW This newspaper likes to print things in a controversial manner - it never was a serious newspaper which tried to inform opinion. This link is an example. The country is up to its eyes in debt and the only thing they can do is to start a campaign against tax increases :-

http://www.express.co.uk/web/petroltaxcrusade

I agree that the tax is far too high (in Luxembourg we pay the lowest rates in Europe), but if you continually live beyond your means you'll have to face the music sooner or later. And a responsible newspaper would admit to that and campaign against government waste.
0
 
LVL 33

Expert Comment

by:knightEknight
ID: 35169148
<sidebar>
BigRat - For the record, I never said to you "You don't understand simple economics", if you re-read that thread I said something like "you have a good handle on these principles", yet you proposed an idea that IMO would not be good for the economy "at this time" (key phrase), and therefore would actually be counterproductive to the goal of making the debt manageable.  I don't want to re-hash the argument, just to clarify that I did give you a fair hearing and due credit, as you did me.
</sidebar>
0
 
LVL 16

Author Comment

by:carsRST
ID: 35180764
>>but the worst president he is not yet

Do you have a weaker president to name?
0
 
LVL 16

Author Comment

by:carsRST
ID: 35180771
>>worst president he is not yet

Question focused on "weak" not worst.  They could go hand in hand, but that's not the focus of the question.

0
 
LVL 29

Assisted Solution

by:leonstryker
leonstryker earned 10 total points
ID: 35180960
Do you have a weaker president to name?

Sure, Carter.
0
 
LVL 20

Expert Comment

by:viki2000
ID: 35226640
Answer in the Word file.

OBAMA---THE-WEAKEST-PRESIDENT-IN.doc
0
 
LVL 84

Expert Comment

by:ozo
ID: 35227955
He might be the weakest, depending on how you define "weak".
Some possible criteria for weakness might be
Being forced to resign.
Being impeached.
Having the most vetoes overridden.
Having the most nominations denied in the Senate.
Having no standing army to command.
(by that last criterion, Obama might seem the strongest president ever for commanding
a military with the largest budget ever - although with inflation adjustment, FDR would have been stonger
in that sense)
Being least popular.
(that one may be hard to assess objectively as opinion polling methods in the 19th century may not be comparable to opinion polling methods in the 21th century)

Another debate might be how strong a president ought to be.
And what is the appropriate balance of power between the various branches of government.
0
 
LVL 22

Assisted Solution

by:_TAD_
_TAD_ earned 7 total points
ID: 35229561
Weak? nah... I don't think so.  Naive, most definately.  But perhaps naivete is a sign of weakness (??)

Take the health care bill for example (it's merits/demerits not withstanding).  The Demacrats had the numbers to pass the bill.  Obama instead chose to spend weeks (months?) debating the bill in an attempt to get a Republican to sign on to the bill.  Snow (R) from Maine finally agreed to sign onto the bill to allow it to come to a floor for a vote (which she later voted against the bill).  


[Strengths]
  Obama stuck to his convictions.  He promised a bi-partisan healthcare bill.  He got one Republican to vote for it to bring it to the general assembly for a full senate vote.  The Republicans still voted (unanimously) against it, but Obama could say he stuck to his convictions and got it to the floor on a bi-partisan vote.

Obama promised to pull out of Iraq and did.  Another president may have just stayed there to avoid the fallout and mess that leaving a war-torn country in ruins would lead to.
0
 
LVL 8

Assisted Solution

by:behenderson
behenderson earned 7 total points
ID: 35307955
If you believe that newspaper then the Arab League is more hawkish on Libya then the United States and that is a load of hooey.  Taking an inaccurate news source seriously is not intelligent or constructive.  Right now half the Republicans seem to be pissing and whining that he is not hawkish enough towards Libya and half whining that he is too hawkish on Libya with Newt being very upset that he is both too hawkish and not hawkish enough on Libya depending upon which position allows him a better opportunity to throw a tantrum and generally be a nattering nabob of negativity.

My biggest problem with Obama is that he did not do anything to reverse what the Bush administration did with TARP when the Bush administration paid out on worthless debt backed securities at 100 cents on the dollar, and I take issue with every single democrat and Republican that voted for Tarp under Bush which had a larger percentage of Democrats supporting it.  But as far is his foreign policy goes he has been no more or less hawkish than I would want him to be.

There is absolutely no Republican unified stance on anything that Obama should or should not be doing differently militarily with the possible exception of the Gingrich objection which is that regardless of what it is he does they object to it for the simple sake of objection and have no issue contradicting themselves and are absolutely absent anything that would resemble leadership preferring instead to take on the role of constant mindless complainers who offer up nothing and complain about everything.
0
 
LVL 25

Assisted Solution

by:Ron M
Ron M earned 7 total points
ID: 35325745
It's simply a matter of opinion.

I think he's been very calculated and measured in his response to the middle east uprisings.

On the other hand you have hords of people calling him a war monger....
So he's either a war monger or .."the weakest president eva!"... surely it can't be both.

Seems to me the strategy for Republicans...is to not take an official policy stance on anything, so they can continue to argue all points of every issue simultaneously...and of course leave open the door for criticism of Obama and all democrats who support him.

I consider the Republican party to be "weaker" in this regard, because it takes courage to take an official policy stance, and back it up with action.... rather than just lob lame verbal attacks for the sake of being spiteful.

I see a lot of second guessing and criticism of the president, but nobody seems to be willing to lay their own cards on the table and state what they would *specifically* do differently..
0
 
LVL 25

Expert Comment

by:Ron M
ID: 35325762
Also...

A desire for peace through  diplomacy should not be misconstrued as an unwillingness to engage an enemy.
0
 
LVL 29

Expert Comment

by:leonstryker
ID: 35326405
I see a lot of second guessing and criticism of the president, but nobody seems to be willing to lay their own cards on the table and state what they would *specifically* do differently.

I see lots of people stating *specifically* as to what they would do differently from the Tea Party's to the ACLU. To say otherwise is just not true.
0
 
LVL 11

Expert Comment

by:Jason210
ID: 35355246
Iran. The Green Movement call for democracy, Obama stands aloof. Iran plan to execute opposition leaders.

Egypt. Hosni Mubarak, long standing ally of the US, faces demonstrations, Obama quickly calls for him to resign.

Ass-licking enemies and abandonment of friends seems to be the watchword for Obama, except of course with that old friend Saudi Arabia, whose invasion of Bahrain evoked no protests.
0
 
LVL 8

Expert Comment

by:behenderson
ID: 35355535

Greece was an ally too when they had an unpopular brutal government.  The United States chose to back Papadopoulos because he was a staunch ally.  He was a staunch ally, and also a brutal repressive power hungry dictator.  Greeks still distrust and dislike America, backing Papadopoulos was a short term positive and a long term mistake.  Unpopular dictatorships are untenable and will at some point crumble.

Mubarak was a disliked leader with very little long term support.  His friendship towards the United States was not accompanied by any internal support for a government that matched the ideals or principals held dear within the United States.  He acted as an ally, but he is disliked, has little support left, does not support our ideals and has a horrible long term prognosis for staying in power.  Supporting Mubarka would result in 3 to 5 years of close cooperation followed by decades of hatred distrust and antipathy when his inevitable fall from power occurred.

Iran is the country most likely to fall apart on it's own if we just stay away and let it.  Sending in US troops to Iran would create a groundswell of support for clerics who, left to their own devices will be out of power within a decade.

From a long term standpoint Obama made the correct call in both those conflicts.
0
 
LVL 11

Expert Comment

by:Jason210
ID: 35357107
You can give all the reasons you like for not supporting Mubarak. I even agree with you. But the point is, Mubarak was an ally of the US until there was a rebellion, then Obama turned against him.

Iran is the country most likely to fall apart on it's own if we just stay away and let it.  Sending in US troops to Iran would create a groundswell of support for clerics who, left to their own devices will be out of power within a decade
.

Yes, Obama fears Islam. Perhaps that's why he goes for the weak targets, like Gadaffi, who have no allies and whose regime is not supported by muslims.

Here is Obama meeting Gadaffi at the G8 in 2009. Just read some of the positive comments about this.

http://www.tripolipost.com/articledetail.asp?c=1&i=3357


0
 
LVL 8

Expert Comment

by:behenderson
ID: 35358122
It looks like Gaddafi's newspaper likes Gaddafi.
0
 
LVL 11

Expert Comment

by:Jason210
ID: 35358164
Indeed it does. And so do many of Gadaffi's people.
0
 
LVL 8

Expert Comment

by:behenderson
ID: 35359684
In Iran the protests did not have universal broad based support, and there was not a widespread military uprising to be supported.  In Libya the protests are broad based and there is a military uprising.  Anyone in the United States who thinks that we should not support Libya, but should have invaded Iran is not in possession of a keen military mind.

I can certainly understand the position that we should not do anything with Iran because we are currently fighting in 2 different countries.  Heck, I thought Iraq was a horrible idea because we already had a huge commitment in Afghanistan and needed to complete our mission there first.  So I am certainly not always in favor of military action.

But anyone who thought that Iraq was a great Idea and that invading Iran would have been absolutely terrific, but that being involved with the conflict in Libya is a horrible idea.  That person has scrambled brains.  The incredible inconsistency of positions there is just too much to take.

Anyone who did not think we should have invaded Iraq and who did not want us to invade Iran, and who does not now think that we should be assisting the rebels in Libya.  That I can understand.

0
 
LVL 11

Assisted Solution

by:Jason210
Jason210 earned 6 total points
ID: 35361059
Attacking Libya was not a sound military decision. The outcome was obvious to Robert Gates, the secretary of defence, who advised Obama not to go in. Even without a through analysis, he should have realised from Afghanistan and Iraq that to try and overthrow a regimé is not easy, and requires more than aerial bombardment. It's impossible without ground troops and even wohen it succeeds, it tends to leave a mess behind with no-one really in control.

The use of United Nations Security Council Resolution 1973 is invalid. Apart from Gadaffi's bombast, there is no evidence to show he is or has been attacking civilians. If the UN officially recognises the rebels as a legimate libyan opposition and military force, then they are no longer civilians and no longer covered by the security resolution. I mean, thay have tanks and heavy weapons. The UN Resolution does not give protection to such armed forces.

When the UN was established after of World War 2, one of it's main objectives was to minimise the role of war in human affairs. Instead enforcing peace and security it appears in this case to have been used as an agent of western political forces. Not only have these forces overstepped the UN resolution of  by attempting to turn the tide of a civil war,  the resulting prolonged stalemate has cause far more human suffering and loss of life than it would if they'd satyed out of the conflict.

The Libyan intervention is a failure on all fronts:

It failed to protect civilians.
It failed to get rid of Gadaffi,
It has upset the rebels who think the UN have not done enough,
It has weakened the UN as a body operating within the constitutional framework of the UN Charter.

Obama should have done one of two things. (1) Stay out and advise other countries to do so. I doubt wheher any action would have been taken without US, Germany, Russia and China on board. (2) Total committment from the beginning, including the sending in of troops to secure rebel captured towns.

Instead, he dithered. He waited two weeks and then sent in aircraft only, then pulled out. And NATO without US leading is a ridiculous concept. NATO should be disbanded.

I don't know if Obama is the weakest president in history, but he is certainly an indecisive one. I lost my respect for him over this Libyan affair. I haven't studied all US preseidents although Herbert Hoover was quite weak in that he did not have the courage to do something about the over-inflation of stock prices which caused the crash of 1929.

Roosevelt was the best President USA have had in recent times.





0
 
LVL 25

Expert Comment

by:Ron M
ID: 35368626
""The use of United Nations Security Council Resolution 1973 is invalid."""


...dictatorship is invalid to begin with.

A dictator has earned no right to sovereignty, especially when they are no longer valid in the eyes of their own people.

Forgive me if I don't shed a tear when Gadhafi is killed by a NATO missile.


""Obama should have done one of two things. (1) Stay out and advise other countries to do so. I doubt wheher any action would have been taken without US, Germany, Russia and China on board. (2) Total committment from the beginning, including the sending in of troops to secure rebel captured towns.

""""

That's about as contradictory of a position as one could take.  It allows you to argue against any action that isn't either.... 1) complete isolationist  2) unilateral ground war.   ..Neither of which are workable policies in the current geopolitical climate.
0
 
LVL 25

Expert Comment

by:Ron M
ID: 35368703
""'I don't know if Obama is the weakest president in history, but he is certainly an indecisive one.""""


I find the right wing arguments to be duplicitous and convenient...

If he acted more "decisively", meaning more quickly..., conservatives would say he should have waited for allies to join the effort, or that he "bypassed congress"....or it was a "kneejerk" decision that he didn't think through.

What you call indecisive or "dithering"... (a "buzz word" that's been passed around the right wing parrot machine for several weeks)....  I call measured and calculated.
0
 
LVL 11

Expert Comment

by:Jason210
ID: 35368933
That's about as contradictory of a position as one could take.  It allows you to argue against any action that isn't either.... 1) complete isolationist  2) unilateral ground war.   ..Neither of which are workable policies in the current geopolitical climate.

It means you either go in and do the job properly, or keep out. And he could have kept out.  This was a rebellion - an internal matter in Libya that Gadaffi would have put down, with much less loss of life and suffering than we're seeing now. The civilian population is suffering now in a way that would never have happened if NATO wasn't bombing Libya. France and Britain pushed for intervention for their own reasons. US doesn't care much about Gadaffi. The US defence secretary advised Obama not do it. He could, and should have said no. That's being decisive. That's taking a stance.

The United Nations Security Council Resolution 1973 calls for an end to violence and all attacks against civilians. Yet the rebels are recognised by the west as a legitimate opposition. So they are not civilians, and their aggression towards Gadaffi troops is equally likely to cause harm to civilans. What we are seeing here is the UN being used as a machine for political force, rather than to promote peace. But, the resolution also states that
...dictatorship is invalid to begin with.

A dictator has earned no right to sovereignty, especially when they are no longer valid in the eyes of their own people.

All of the Arab world is ruled by autocracies. Do they have the right? We see rebelions there too, that are put down immediately. The west don't intervene.

Good thing too. Because where the west does intervene, there's a bloody mess. Afghanistan, Iraq, Vietnam etc. Did those countries invite Americans to come and kill their people and impose their own idea of what form of government their country should have? Or did the Americans just decide to do it? What right does the US have to impose it's ideas of right and wrong on the world? In that sense America is the dictator of the world. I thought Obama might have changed that, or at least tried too.
0
 
LVL 25

Expert Comment

by:Ron M
ID: 35369048
"""All of the Arab world is ruled by autocracies. """"


Watch closely......I think you are witnessing an end to that period in human history.
Nobody believes it's not going to be messy or long...but...  so what ?

Freedom is a human right. - non-negotiable....and just because we can't intervene everywhere doesn't mean we shouldn't intervene anywhere.

If you defend a dictatorship, you have less right to your own freedom...and until the day comes you decide to volunteer to go live under a dictatorship...you have no right to criticize others who refuse to live under dictatorship.

Let me say it again...

Dictatorship = INVALID

This is a fact, and if you want proof I can provide it quite easily....
0
 
LVL 25

Expert Comment

by:Ron M
ID: 35369059
'""do the job properly""" - Disclaimer: SUBJECT TO INTERPRETATION
0
 
LVL 11

Expert Comment

by:Jason210
ID: 35369178
If you defend a dictatorship, you have less right to your own freedom...and until the day comes you decide to volunteer to go live under a dictatorship...you have no right to criticize others who refuse to live under dictatorship.
Don't recall criticising the rebels. I'm criticing the US and the UN and the western coalition.

I think we should keep out of other countries' business and use the UN for what it was originally intend for - maintaining peace and humanitarian aid, and not as an agent of western political force. And not as a prolonger of war!

And as for telling me what I can and can't criticise, I have only this to say. If you believe that the US should go around putting the world to right wherever it can,  imposing its noble democratic values (as well as political and economic self-interests) on other countries, then may be you're the one who should live by that. Why don't you go and live in Iraq or Afghanistan where those INVALID regimes have been replaced with the valid American ones, and help your fellow Americans stand up for what is right?
0
 
LVL 1

Assisted Solution

by:sbdt8631
sbdt8631 earned 6 total points
ID: 35369308
>>Watch closely......I think you are witnessing an end to that period in human history.
Nobody believes it's not going to be messy or long...but...  so what ?

So what is that my gas costs $3.75 a gallon today and will most likely cost more next week.  So what is that the higher cost of energy is going to put the brakes on our already fragile economy and put more people out of work.  So what is that we are spending millions of dollars we can't afford interfering in an internal civil war that should be decided by the Libyans.  The economic cost of this interference is going to be far higher for the US and the west than it will be for Libyans in the long run.

As far as I am concerned, the Libyans allowed Gaddafi to rule all these years.  Let them throw him out if they no longer want him.
0
 
LVL 25

Expert Comment

by:Ron M
ID: 35369323
""""So they are not civilians, and their aggression towards Gadaffi troops is equally likely to cause harm to civilans.""""      =    criticism.



"""Why don't you go and live in"""

... I don't have to, nor would I want to live in a non-democratic country, ..and i'm an American not an Iraqi.   Also, I don't have to join the military to have an opinion on proper use of the military either.

I think the US and every other democratic country on earth should exploit the opportunity to spread democracy whenever possible.  Gadhafi provided the US and our allies with plenty of jusitification.  So it's game over for him.

""" use the UN for what it was originally intend for"""
This is what it's for....especially the Security Council.

0
 
LVL 25

Expert Comment

by:Ron M
ID: 35369420
""So what is that my gas costs $3.75 a gallon today """ - ... exactly ... SO WHAT..

Believe it or not the cost of gasoline is not the most important thing.   Certainly not if we're debating the MORAL aspects of this situation.

""So what is that we are spending millions of dollars """...   again... SO WHAT...

We've spent millions of dollars on far less important things in my opinion.  That plastic argument can be applied to ANYTHING the government does.


"""As far as I am concerned, the Libyans allowed Gaddafi to rule all these years.  Let them throw him out if they no longer want him. """

...That's the thing about dictatorships.... nobody "allows" them to rule...they just do.
0
 
LVL 25

Expert Comment

by:Ron M
ID: 35369434
Strike last post... different thread.
0
 
LVL 1

Expert Comment

by:sbdt8631
ID: 35369829
>>Strike last post... different thread.

You have the right thread.  Just call me selfish, but morally I am more worried about our contry than I am about another.  The last time energy prices spiked the way they are right now was in 2008 and it culminated in the housing bubble bursting and financial disaster.  Higher energy prices are an extreme drag on an economy that cannot afford an extreme drag.  Jason210 is right.  We should have let Gaddafi end the whole thing quickly instead of helping to drag it on.  It is an internal Libyan matter that should be left to them.
0
 
LVL 25

Expert Comment

by:Ron M
ID: 35369911
""let Gaddafi end the whole thing quickly"""


...Say what you really mean.
When you say "end", I think you mean kill.  When you say "the whole thing", you mean the mass movement of people who initially demonstrated peacefully for freedom and were met with violence.

I have a moral dillema with that, and yes I believe it is selfish, but moresoe shortsighted.  It's exactly that mindset that allows the worst atrocities to go unpunished.  Even worse, it empowers those autocratic individuals who are diametrically opposed to ideas like ...freedom and human rights.

It sends a message that ..no matter how horrible the crime... dictators won't be punished so long as they apply crushing force to a civilian population and any opposition.  That's the same philosophy that allowed Hitler to get as far as he did.
0
 
LVL 11

Expert Comment

by:Jason210
ID: 35369960
sbt88631

Since this post was about Obama, I have responded to your Gadaffi post in concurrent thread.
0
 
LVL 1

Expert Comment

by:sbdt8631
ID: 35369966
>>When you say "end", I think you mean kill.  When you say "the whole thing", you mean the mass movement of people who initially demonstrated peacefully for freedom and were met with violence.

Yup.  They were satisfied to have him as their leader for over forty years without doing anything about it.  He is their problem, not ours.
0
 
LVL 25

Expert Comment

by:Ron M
ID: 35370001
""" They were satisfied to have him as their leader for over forty years """"

...I think you are confusing being satisfied, with being scared to death.

Realize that the freedom you and I enjoy ...right at this moment,.. could mean an execution or life in prison in other places of the world.

""He is their problem, not ours""
... was it only their problem when he killed Americans in a terrorist attack ?
0
 
LVL 29

Expert Comment

by:leonstryker
ID: 35691053
+1 point to Obama, for having the balls to order the raid on the Bin Laden's compound instead of hitting it with missles.

+1 point to Obama, for dumping the body in the sea.
0
 
LVL 25

Expert Comment

by:Ron M
ID: 35691144
hah..   True.
0
 
LVL 11

Expert Comment

by:Jason210
ID: 35694023
+1 point to Obama, for not releasing photo of body of OBL
0
 
LVL 29

Expert Comment

by:leonstryker
ID: 35694102
+1 point to Obama, for not releasing photo of body of OBL

That is -1 in my book. Besides, I think the press will force him to do it anyway.
0
 
LVL 11

Expert Comment

by:Jason210
ID: 35694334
The press can't force him to do it.

We've already seen many rejoice in his death and the vulgar celebrations that entailed. Should Obama now also indulge those people by satisfying their morbid curiosity? Or did you feel that OBL sympathizrs and supporters ought to see the body of OBL with a chunk of his head missing to scare them -- kind of like when they used to hang bodies of criminals outside towns in the medieval times?

If Obama released the photo, it would be circulating social media sites in no time, and be used by militant agitators to inflame less militant muslims. That's why he's not releasing it.
0
 
LVL 8

Expert Comment

by:behenderson
ID: 35694399
I agree.  What will be done with those photos by those who have no internal control mechanism would be unnecisarily damaging to the image of the United States abroad.

People in the United States have every reason to feel triumphant, they have every reason to despise Bin Laden and it is understandable that many may wish to deface his dead photo in disgusting ways.  But the job of a leader is to understand what the impact those actions will have on your long term goals as a country.


Ultimately it depends upon whether or not he intends to stay in the region for a prolonged period of time.  If not release the photo and who cares what everyone else thinks, but if he intends to maintain a US presence for any extended period of time then hearts and minds are important.  If he intends on maintaining a presence then I think releasing the photos would show a weakness of character on Obamas part and would be popular in the short term but problematic in the long term.
0
 
LVL 11

Expert Comment

by:Jason210
ID: 35696194
Don't you think that releasing the photo is like exhibiting a trophy? Kind of like when a game animal has been shot, the head gets stuffed and put up on wall? I think Obama is keen to steer people away from this mentality also.
0
 
LVL 29

Expert Comment

by:leonstryker
ID: 35698117
The press can't force him to do it.

Freedom of Information Act. Its just a matter of time, but those photo's are comming out, and yes some fool will put it on a T-shirt.
0
 
LVL 11

Expert Comment

by:Jason210
ID: 35698165
There are several exemptions to that act and one of them is national defence, which is what Obama will be using. yes they might come out eventually, but that might in like in 30 years time.
0
 
LVL 27

Expert Comment

by:BigRat
ID: 35698920
Has anybody though of Wikileaks?

It would be probably be better to destroy the photos in that case.
0
 
LVL 29

Expert Comment

by:leonstryker
ID: 35700261
I am willing to bet that those photos will be out in less than a year, or at least before the next election.
0
 

Expert Comment

by:DataRich
ID: 35790598
-1 for everyone who don't seem to care about the Constitution.

Regardless of what can be said about OBL, there is no doubt that violating another country's boundary's and assassinating someone is a pretty big breach of treaties.

What if the Seals had dropped in to London and assassinated OBL there?   Do you think England would have gone along with a decision like that??
0
 
LVL 29

Expert Comment

by:leonstryker
ID: 35790660
Do you think England would have gone along with a decision like that??

Yes, I think they would have gone along, but the points is there would not have been a need to do it, since we trust the British to not harbor such a man.
0
 

Expert Comment

by:DataRich
ID: 35790680
That wasn't the question.   The question is can the United States just send military troops in to any country without their knowledge or consent?

It seems pretty obvious that Obama violated international treaties about the sovereignty of other nations.   Or now does the United States pick and choose which nations 'matter' and which ones don't?
0
 
LVL 29

Expert Comment

by:leonstryker
ID: 35791257
Or now does the United States pick and choose which nations 'matter' and which ones don't?

Yeap, that is why Libya is being bombed by NATO, Syria is only facing possible sanctions.
0
 
LVL 11

Expert Comment

by:Jason210
ID: 35792104
The USA has now set a precedent in it's foreign policy. It's sent a message to the world that it can take out anybody it likes regardless of what country they are in. There are already discussions between middle-east analysts that such an approach might be taken with leaders of oppressive regimes, like Gadaffi.

In addition to breaching the sovereignty of another country, the killing of OBL was an extra-judicial killing which was also wrong. So the USA has set a precedent there too. It can justify extra-judicial killings "in some cases".


These precedents show that not only is their a mechanism in place to carry out these operations, but that the USA can get away with it too.



0
 
LVL 27

Expert Comment

by:BigRat
ID: 35792222
>>So the USA has set a precedent there too. It can justify extra-judicial killings "in some cases".

This sort of thing has been going on for centuaries, only the USA has to make a lot of noise* about it. The major thing which I object to is Americans going on about doing it in the name of "justice and freedom", ie: doing ME a favour!

* When I was in England a women of some literary repute asked me what I was studying and I said American History. She said why would one want to study the history of such a *brash* nation as that. The word *brash* I thought at the time was very odd, but over the years it seems more and more to fit.
0
What Should I Do With This Threat Intelligence?

Are you wondering if you actually need threat intelligence? The answer is yes. We explain the basics for creating useful threat intelligence.

 
LVL 16

Author Comment

by:carsRST
ID: 35792261
>>She said why would one want to study the history of such a *brash* nation as that

Like to see her description were the US to stop offering aid and relief missions around the globe.  The US is by far the most generous country on the face of the planet, and there's not another country that even comes close.

You should have told her to keep quiet about things she knows nothing about.
0
 
LVL 27

Expert Comment

by:BigRat
ID: 35792431
>>The US is by far the most generous country on the face of the planet, and there's not another country that even comes close.

Oh yet another myth.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Official_development_assistance#Distribution

Now let us compare the US with 310 million inhabitants with the the EEC, some 500 million inhabitants. The US gives around 28 billion, the EEC around 56 (by adding up the contributions of the members). Add Norway and Switzerland - so we are talking about Europe - it's well over sixty.

Compare by percentage of GDP then my country Luxembourg comes third, the US as nineteenth next to Greece and Portugal.

One can only hope that carsRST is not a typical American.
0
 
LVL 16

Author Comment

by:carsRST
ID: 35792590
>>Now let us compare the US with 310 million inhabitants with the the EEC

For one, that list (taken with a grain of salt) does not include private donations (again, not another country that comes close).  Two, you have to add in how many countries?  Three - where was Luxembourg with Haiti, tsunami in 2004, Japan, Iraq, Afghanistan...who led all those relief efforts?

Nice try though.

0
 

Expert Comment

by:DataRich
ID: 35792616
>>The US is by far the most generous country on the face of the planet, and there's not another country that even comes close.


What an odd statement.   The chat was about President Obama breaking international law by sending the military into another country.

By your statement, does a rich guy like the IMF Chief get a free pass for raping a maid, simply because he's rich?
0
 
LVL 16

Author Comment

by:carsRST
ID: 35792622
>>By your statement, does a rich guy like the IMF Chief get a free pass for raping a maid, simply because he's rich?

Yeah, that's exactly what I'm saying (eyes rolling)
0
 
LVL 11

Expert Comment

by:Jason210
ID: 35792626
Sticking to the point, the OBL assassination is a precedent in the sense that it was openly admitted to by the USA and was mostly approved by western governments and the western media. It's seems to be politically correct to condone the killing, which is disturbing I think.
0
 
LVL 27

Expert Comment

by:BigRat
ID: 35792849
>>again, not another country that comes close

Reference? Proof.

>>What an odd statement

I agree, but he continually makes unsubstianted statements.

>>Sticking to the point...

I'm not quite sure that one might find an example from the previous centuary, or the one before, although perhaps internatiional law did not prevail. On the other hand my point is that everybody does it, it is only the Americans who are brash enough to admit it.

>> (eyes rolling)

I'd see a doctor about that, if I were you.

0
 
LVL 25

Expert Comment

by:Ron M
ID: 35795261
Was our soveriengty not violated by the hijackers on 9/11 ???

How dare anyone criticize the US for exacting JUSTICE on this scumbag...because there is not a singel country on earth that wouldn't do the same exact thing in that situation.

Pakistan's "feelings hurt" are the least of my concern.

Justice is more important than "feelings" or precedents.
0
 
LVL 25

Expert Comment

by:Ron M
ID: 35795289
Watch the president speaking LIVE right now...and tell me that what he is saying..right now...is in any way weak.

...I think his testicles might be visible from the international space station right now.
0
 
LVL 27

Expert Comment

by:BigRat
ID: 35795391
>>Was our soveriengty not violated by the hijackers on 9/11 ???

Strickly speaking not. You actually let all of the hijackers into your country on valid passports.  I believe that the nationality of them were Saudis and if you weren't on good terms with that dictatorship and human rights violators you'd probably not have let them into the country.
0
 
LVL 25

Expert Comment

by:Ron M
ID: 35795475
""Strickly speaking not. You actually let all of the hijackers into your country on valid passports.  I believe that the nationality of them were Saudis and if you weren't on good terms with that dictatorship and human rights violators you'd probably not have let them into the country. """


...touche~..good point....lol...but it was an attack anyway and it was avenged without hostility toward Pakistan itself.

I think the Saudi Regime is going to get what is coming to them sooner or later by their own people.... our "good terms" with them are not as good as some believe.  They are our "frenemies".
0
 

Expert Comment

by:DataRich
ID: 35795574
"How dare anyone criticize the US for exacting JUSTICE on this scumbag...because there is not a singel country on earth that wouldn't do the same exact thing in that situation."


OMG!   What an unbelievable statement.   This is exactly the kind of "Justice" that exists in the Middle East, which is exactly why the Middle East is such a f--ing mess.   One tribe member gets killed by another, so the other tribe shoots another tribe member.  Just exactly the opposite of what our country stands for.   Justice by gun or car bomb.   Sounds like Bonanza or Gunsmoke 'justice'.

How dare I criticize the US?   I will if I want.  That's called free speech dude.   I guess you're against that too.  Unreal.

The whole notion of Justice lies in our Justice and Court system, not by assassination.  Let's face it.  OBL was murdered.   Whether it was a 'justified' murder can be debated.  But it wasn't 'Justice'.   Justice and murder don't go together.  It's an entirely unAmerican concept.
0
 
LVL 16

Author Comment

by:carsRST
ID: 35795690
>>Let's face it.  OBL was murdered.

Yeah, it would have been better to capture him, give him an ACLU attorney, a platform from which to speak his evil, and a lengthy trial that would have cost US tax payers millions.

Or...

use a cheap bullet

I'll go the bullet route.  

0
 

Expert Comment

by:DataRich
ID: 35795770
Ha, how totally expected.   ACLU bashing.   How childlike.

I wonder if the tables were turned and Pakistan sent a secret military force in to murder the Seals who were part of the OBL hit squad if you'd have a different reaction.  After all, like it says in the bible, an eye for an eye, a tooth for  a tooth.
0
 
LVL 27

Expert Comment

by:BigRat
ID: 35795775
>>...that would have cost US tax payers millions.

I did suggest the International Court in the Hague. That would have cost the US taxpayer nothing and given us the problem of security and possible terrorist blackmail. But you're so dead against co-operating with others, so dead for doing everything yourself.
0
 
LVL 16

Author Comment

by:carsRST
ID: 35795803
>>I did suggest the International Court in the Hague.
Bullet much better and cheaper and is the only thing these animals understand


>>I wonder if the tables were turned and Pakistan sent a secret military force
They're too busy protecting terrorists.

0
 

Expert Comment

by:DataRich
ID: 35795988
Pakistan is barely a government.   The military and armed religious nuts are forces that could topple the government.   They don't have alot of control over the country so you're comment is pretty uninformed once again.

0
 
LVL 25

Expert Comment

by:Ron M
ID: 35796072
"That's called free speech dude"

...WHERE do you think that right comes from...DUDE ?
...those rights don't exist in those "tribal" areas btw..

""Pakistan is barely a government."""

Ahh...seee ....now you're getting it....
Pakistan only has a government because of US support.
Without our support the extremists would have confiscated by force...their whole country by now.

So while some would like to believe that a policy of isolationism would lead to US prosperity and peace......they would be dead wrong, and eventually just dead.

Forgive me if I dont' shed a tear for OBL.... or that i'm not sympathetic to the "sovereignty" of Pakistan's fledgling government.
0
 
LVL 25

Expert Comment

by:Ron M
ID: 35796089
OBL declared open war on the US...

In war...when the enemy is killed...nobody calls is "murder" ....dude..
0
 
LVL 25

Expert Comment

by:Ron M
ID: 35796117
"""you're so dead against co-operating with others"""

The US and Pakistan cooperate constantly....behind the scenes.

But with the location of OBL being right next to a Paki army base... the risk of COOPERATING is that OBL get's tipped off and escapes, and is able to carry out more attacks against the US and Europe.

I don't think Obama...Bush..or any president or leader in the world would take that chance.
0
 

Expert Comment

by:DataRich
ID: 35796165
For anyone who believes a bunch of raghead Muslims living in caves overpowered pilots in 4 airliners and flew right into the Pentagon, what are you smoking?   You think the Muslims are all James Bond and our military is a bunch of incompetent boobs?
0
 
LVL 16

Author Comment

by:carsRST
ID: 35796195
Datarich-

You're off your rocker, man.
0
 
LVL 25

Expert Comment

by:Ron M
ID: 35796235
Datarich...

That was assinine... and over the top.
...the "raghead" comment was unnecessary.

They weren't up against our military, they were up against a plane full of terrified civilian passengers and 1 inch thick cockpit door...

They didn't have to be James Bond.  They just got lucky and we were unprepared.

0
 

Expert Comment

by:DataRich
ID: 35796244
Hardly.  I refuse to believe our entire army, navy and air force were SO incompetent that they watched for 30 minutes as a jet flew from Ohio to the Pentagon.  It's simply not possible.   There are thousands of architects, engineers, pilots and firefighters who think the same way.

http://ae911truth.org/
0
 
LVL 25

Expert Comment

by:Ron M
ID: 35796290
ah... a 911 truther....

That explains it...

Nevermind.
0
 
LVL 16

Author Comment

by:carsRST
ID: 35796307
>>Hardly.  I refuse to believe our entire army, navy and air force were SO incompetent that they watched


I heard they were out chasing bigfoot.
 patterson-bigfoot-lg.jpg
0
 

Expert Comment

by:DataRich
ID: 35796325
Ha, ha.   You're so predictable.  You haven't made one rational comment yet, RST.
0
 
LVL 25

Expert Comment

by:Ron M
ID: 35796365
Not true Cars...
Bigfoot works for the CIA...they supply him with food and weapons so he can terrorize people in our national parks.  It's a huge conspiracy, ...they know right where he is.
0
 
LVL 25

Expert Comment

by:Ron M
ID: 35796387
DataRich...

Realize you are basing your arguments on a crazy conspiracy theory.

...most people, are going to find humor in that.
0
 

Expert Comment

by:DataRich
ID: 35796601
I find our entire political and media system pretty humorous.   The fact is most crimes are conspiracies.
And any lawyer who wants to win a case had better come up with a good conspiracy theory.
People are just parrots and they repeat 'conspiracy theory' because the heard it on TV without having a clue what it means.

The other fact is that the pilots were military pilots, not scared civilians.  Nearly all pilots are ex-military.  It's sad you call them scared civilians, xuserx.
0
 
LVL 25

Expert Comment

by:Ron M
ID: 35797515
Datarich,

Maybe you want to hold a candlelight vigil for Osama at ground zero ??

...Then when people outraged and gunning for you, you can simply explain that it was all a big conspiracy by our government... and Osama is the good guy, and America is the bad guys...

See how that works out for you.
0
 

Expert Comment

by:DataRich
ID: 35797651
Again, how can you possibly think a bunch of guys who can't speak English and never flew airliners before, were able to overpower military pilots and take over the planes?

You probably believe the 'magic' bullet killed Kennedy too.

The only reason we have a Constitution is to protect us FROM OUR GOVERNMENT.   If we could trust our government, we could trust them to do everything necessary without a Constitution.  But that wasn't the case, and it still isn't.
0
 
LVL 25

Expert Comment

by:Ron M
ID: 35797705
"""Again, how can you possibly think a bunch of guys who can't speak English and never flew airliners before, were able to overpower military pilots and take over the planes?"""

Because they had weapons for starters...

Secondly, I don't think whether or not they spoke english has anything to do with it.  Additionally several of them were educated middle class businessmen, not idiot cavemen as you claim.

Being ex-military doesn't make someone invincible btw.
0
 
LVL 16

Author Comment

by:carsRST
ID: 35797720
>>Again, how can you possibly think a bunch of guys who can't speak English and never flew airliners before, were able to overpower military pilots and take over the planes?

And as we all know speaking English is a prerequisite for flying a plane.

Anyone know how loch ness monster search is going?
0
 
LVL 25

Expert Comment

by:Ron M
ID: 35797744
....also, they weren't flying airliners...they were crashing them.

I hear is a lot easier to crash on purpose...than to fly and land safely.
0
 

Expert Comment

by:DataRich
ID: 35798177
Have you ever flown an airliner?  Or even a corporate jet for that matter?   "I hear" huh?  Not very convincing.

I have.  

It's not easy.   Go bask in your ignorance xuser.

It's so weird that you don't seem to be the least bit upset that the government and military allowed our nation's Capitol to be completely and 100% unprotected on 9/11.  The could have crashed into the White House and killed everyone there.  There could have crashed into the Capitol and killed everyone there.  

Apparently that's A-OK with you huh, xuser?   You expect so little of government despite all the taxes you pay.
0
 
LVL 25

Expert Comment

by:Ron M
ID: 35798213
I have microsoft flight simulator...and I am very good at it....

Also... i'm from FL...and I live about 10 miles from where one of the hijackers went to FLIGHT SCHOOL...


....you know...the place where they teach you how to fly planes.

Let me guess...that's a part of the "cover-up" too eh...
0
 

Expert Comment

by:DataRich
ID: 35798266
Ha, I should have guessed.   I video game junkie.

Dude, I hate to break the bad news to you but there aren't any flight schools that teach you how to fly airliners.  They teach you how to fly little single engine planes.  Flight training for airliners is conducted by.... (wait for it)... the AIRLINES.

So how many Boeing 757s does that little flight school that's 10 miles from your house have parked on the tarmac?  
0
 
LVL 25

Expert Comment

by:Ron M
ID: 35798328
I'm gonna be honest DataRich.

I think you are stark raving nuts and not too bright, and I don't normally engage in conversations with crazy or stupid people unless i'm getting paid to do it.

So that said ...i'm done on this thread....at least with you anyway.
0
 

Expert Comment

by:DataRich
ID: 35798662
Ya, you would assume that.    I have a degree in Physics and Chemistry.  You're right.  I'm an idiot.

Go back to your Microsoft Simulator.
0
 
LVL 25

Expert Comment

by:Ron M
ID: 35798727
You have a degree in chemistry, and physics, and you fly 747's...and Bush did 9/11.

Do I have that right ?

You should assume i'm not going to take your word for it at this point.
0
 

Expert Comment

by:DataRich
ID: 35799134
I've never piloted a 747 and I never said I did.    I also didn't say Bush did 9/11.  You did.

Watch this video and tell me how the nose of an airliner went right through the WTC buildings intact and came out the other end.  How is that possible?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P5PZxGsYNnY

0
 
LVL 11

Expert Comment

by:Jason210
ID: 35799966
I've heard most of the conpsiracy theories and all of them have been debunked. The fact is, the simplest, most probable, plausible explanation is that terrorists flew aircraft in to the buildings, and the ensuing fire heated the steel, weakening it, which brought them down.

0
 
LVL 11

Expert Comment

by:Jason210
ID: 35799989
Also, regarding Bin Laden, words like "scumbag" and "evil" never come to mind. He may have been a terrorist, and he may have been involved in 9/11, but didn't act out of selfish gain, as most criminals do.

If you want to see the work of criminals, just have a flick through the mexico narcotic's blogg.
0
 
LVL 27

Expert Comment

by:BigRat
ID: 35800435
>> I refuse to believe our entire army, navy and air force were SO incompetent that they watched for 30 minutes as a jet flew from Ohio to the Pentagon.  It's simply not possible.

I'm afraid it simply is. For all the so-called professionalism of the security services they often don't know what is going on and certainly don't know how to respond to it. And when they do it is often too late and wrong. The best example is the fall of the Iron Curtain. When the CIA finally caught on to what was happening all the countries except Romania had had their revolutions. The CIA smuggled agents from Germany into Romania to "start a revolution", which incidentally was well under way. Ceauscecu rightly recognized the fifth columnists and resolutely refused to believe that it was a people's revolution. There were for some years after that problems with ex-Securitas members who believed that their "country" was stolen by foreigners. Similarly the Arab revolution is being badly handled. Praising Bahrain, no word from the US during the Egyptian and Tunisian revolutions, and hesitation in Libya, inconsistancy towards Syria, and no word about Saudia Arabia and the other Gult States. When one considers the vast quantity of money these spooks consume it is certainly not worth the money.
0
 
LVL 25

Expert Comment

by:Ron M
ID: 35802096
...he killed over 3000 innocent people using his crazy brand of religion as justification... and the words scumbag and evil don't come to mind ?

I'm sure he'll go down in the history books as a mild mannered philanthropic goat herder.
Are you serious ?

""If you want to see the work of criminals, just have a flick through the mexico narcotic's blogg. ""
I agree.....but it's a little ridiculous to use one evil terrorist organization to minimize the evils of another.
0
 
LVL 11

Expert Comment

by:Jason210
ID: 35805283
Well, he was part of a plot that killed 3000 innocent people -- remember that. He was never tried bu court and jury, but rather held responsible by an angry nation. It seems actually that OBL was more of a spokesperson and financier for Al Quaida, rather then it's operational mastermind. Remember there were many involved, and also those who carried out the attack. Consider also why the attack happened. It's not like they just did it for sadistic pleasure. Call him sick, misguided or whatever, but for me the words evil apply only to people who take pleasure from causing the suffering of another, and even when applied to them the word smacks of biblical fanatism rather. Cruelty, lack of empathy, derangement are the impressions I get.

OBL strikes me as a mentally disturbed person, may be even deranged. This image struck home in the recent photos where he had dyed his beard. It would be interesting to know the truth about his life. I don't know if half the bad stuff we are hearing is made up as part of the wish to mained the demonized image. I mean, it would make sense for the CIA to "add" to the evidence found at his home to make the killing look justified. The porn (indicating hypocrite and non religious), the operational plans(still a threat). They could make up anything they want really. Anything goes now, doesn't it?
0
 
LVL 11

Expert Comment

by:Jason210
ID: 35805618
We should also not forget the collatetal damage (killing of innocent civilians) that occurs when the US go to war, 1991 Gulf war being a good example.
0
 
LVL 25

Expert Comment

by:Ron M
ID: 35816461
""was part of a plot '"

No..he was the leader of Al Qaeda, that makes it HIS plot.


"" It seems actually that OBL was more of a spokesperson and financier ""

Seems to who ? Doesn't seem that way to me.  The intel they found in his hideout shows he was actively planning and directing more attacks.  Are you really trying to minimize OBL's role to help your argument ?  REALLY ?  ...He's the LEADER of Al Qaeda ?

I really don't care if OBL didn't get a psychological evaluation and a "fair" trial, I don't think he deserved either.  He declared war on the US... and he lost, simple as that.


"" I mean, it would make sense for the CIA to "add" to the evidence found at his home to make the killing look justified. The porn (indicating hypocrite and non religious), the operational plans(still a threat). They could make up anything they want really. Anything goes now, doesn't it? """

Pfffft... yea... OBL was a pure saint, how could he possibly be a porn addict with his 8 wives and 20 something kids?...get real.  He was a hypocrite, and of course he was still planning attacks hence he released a video about every 8 months to tell us he was.

OBL is fish food, and i'm glad about that...and anyone who wants to continue his cause can join him.
0
 
LVL 11

Expert Comment

by:Jason210
ID: 35819819
He sure liked to film himself. Who has that much footage of themselves walking around, eating, and posing with guns? And a dyed beard? It would be comical if it wasn’t so sickening.
0
 
LVL 11

Expert Comment

by:Jason210
ID: 35819843
Please do not forget all the people that have died in this process in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan. I don't believe any side of this war is right, as it is more political than a concern for justice.

http://aol.sportingnews.com/nba/story/2011-05-02/chris-douglas-roberts-offers-different-perspective-on-death-of-osama-bin-laden
0
 
LVL 11

Expert Comment

by:Jason210
ID: 35819847

"That's the problem. We don't want to hear anything that isn't our perspective.”

That's right Chris. Got their head stuck up their asses.
0
 
LVL 29

Expert Comment

by:leonstryker
ID: 35832913
I really don't care if OBL didn't get a psychological evaluation and a "fair" trial, I don't think he deserved either.  He declared war on the US... and he lost, simple as that.

OBL is fish food, and i'm glad about that...and anyone who wants to continue his cause can join him.


OMG xuserx2000, there is hope for you yet :)
0

Featured Post

IT, Stop Being Called Into Every Meeting

Highfive is so simple that setting up every meeting room takes just minutes and every employee will be able to start or join a call from any room with ease. Never be called into a meeting just to get it started again. This is how video conferencing should work!

Join & Write a Comment

Learn more about the importance of email disclaimers with our top 10 email disclaimer DOs and DON’Ts.
Get an idea of what you should include in an email disclaimer with these Top 5 email disclaimer tips.
Sending a Secure fax is easy with eFax Corporate (http://www.enterprise.efax.com). First, Just open a new email message.  In the To field, type your recipient's fax number @efaxsend.com. You can even send a secure international fax — just include t…
Get a first impression of how PRTG looks and learn how it works.   This video is a short introduction to PRTG, as an initial overview or as a quick start for new PRTG users.

707 members asked questions and received personalized solutions in the past 7 days.

Join the community of 500,000 technology professionals and ask your questions.

Join & Ask a Question

Need Help in Real-Time?

Connect with top rated Experts

11 Experts available now in Live!

Get 1:1 Help Now