As a Right-wing Zealot, i can tell you that i often spoke openly against the man who became the first african-american president. Now that he's in office, he hasn't f*cked up the world like i thought he would, and he hasnt really done anything good for the economy/foreign policy (no matter what Nobel says, the prize was awarded to him based upon a PLAN of his that had not been implemented, and still is not)
Anyway, Let's rate good ol' Obama. Don't be immature and say shit like, "10000/10! I FREAKING LOVE OBAMA!" or "HE SUCKzz, -1/10" and please, not anything like "ChillzMaster is a stupid name" because then i'll take it personally.
For staying neutral, he deserves a neutral grade, except for gitmo, which was a bad move.
If it gets bad enough overseas we can always nuke them.
Bad idea, BAD IDEA!
I say we should tell anyone who doesn't like us to f*ck off and deal with our own problems. We won't be a country at all if Obama keeps on his downward spiral.
Bowing to the Saudi king and Japanese emporer makes us look weak.
I say we should tell anyone who doesn't like us to f*ck off and deal with our own problems. We won't be a country at all if Obama keeps on his downward spiral.
you people were obviously not paying attention when you were taught "Speak softly but carry a big stick".
IS that why his approval ratings are about 52% higher overseas than Bush's?
Uh, not, Obama's approval ratings over seas are 52% higher because he didn't start a war with the middle east. I still find it funny how people can't see that people are just using Bush as the ultimate scapegoat, if you have a problem in your life, it's Bush's fault. I'd give Obama a 6/10, he seems to be trying to help but it isn't accounting to much, and really all he has said that he was going to do was fix healthcare and pull out of Iraq, which he hasn't really done. By the end of his presidency i'd probably rate him a 2/10 for all his failed promises but we will see.
you people were obviously not paying attention when you were taught "Speak softly but carry a big stick".
I generally don't speak at all when I have a big stick, nor do I care what people think of my.
If I were Luxembourg, which does not have a big stick, I would speak very kiss a*s softly. But I happen to represent this sh*thole I live in, which does have a big stick. 20-30,000 thousand of them. They're called Titan II missiles.
But I would not use them. Ever. They are scary, and they are intimidating. That is why I would have them.
Uh, not, Obama's approval ratings over seas are 52% higher because he didn't start a war with the middle east. I still find it funny how people can't see that people are just using Bush as the ultimate scapegoat, if you have a problem in your life, it's Bush's fault.
Alt was pinning nothing on bush with that comment. Not speaking for him, but Obama listens to and cares about (or at least attempts to care about) all countries we deal with equally.
I generally don't speak at all when I have a big stick, nor do I care what people think of my.
If I were Luxembourg, which does not have a big stick, I would speak very kiss a*s softly. But I happen to represent this sh*thole I live in, which does have a big stick. 20-30,000 thousand of them. They're called Titan II missiles.
But I would not use them. Ever. They are scary, and they are intimidating. That is why I would have them.
Yes, and we have them. We carry a big stick, so we can speak softly. We don't need to be assholes to anyone. As long as we're patient and collected in foreign affairs, we're fine. We don't need to get involved in anything that does not directly regard our country, nor can we afford it. Speaking of which.... ----------------------------------------------------------------- What to watch: White House aids are talking about making a primetime address from Mr. President to you. Why you ask? The Afghanistan/Taliban 40k troop decision! I smell a new thread coming on.... (but just for the record, I'm not looking forward to it.)
We don't need to say a **** thing to anyone. We have enough problems on our own soil. We're just pressing our nose where we really don't need it.
Yes, but other countries like it when we come along and chat. Just as long as we're not being ass-holes, we don't need to use our big stick.
Did enough dead troops convince him to send reinforcements?
Well the thing is, they need to defeat or contain the Taliban. It's been proven that they're a viable force, and we don't need them to spread. We don't have enough troops right now to defeat them in Afghanistan, but I'm still borderline on the situation. We need to contain them but we need to contain our fuckin money, ya know?
It's a stressful decision. One that I can't make, and I'll be supporting him in his decision because of that. He knows more than we do, and it's a very difficult decision.
Yes, but other countries like it when we come along and chat.
I don't understand why we should even care what they think of us. Chances are we're going to end up fighting them and killing them at some point in the next 200 years.
We need to contain them but we need to contain our ****in money, ya know?
Well, does heroin production and sales help the economy? If so, we need to kill them all. If not . . . we still need to kill them all.
He knows more than we do, and it's a very difficult decision.
Not necessarily. None of us are adept military commanders, even if we may or may not have observed the principles behind it. He is only going to be acting on the advice given to him by the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the pentagon.
I don't understand why we should even care what they think of us. Chances are we're going to end up fighting them and killing them at some point in the next 200 years.
So that we don't have diplomatic tensions now. If we neglect all other countries and never talk to them about politics or anything, and they're presented with an opportunity in wartime, they won't have a very good view of us.
Well, does heroin production and sales help the economy? If so, we need to kill them all. If not . . . we still need to kill them all.
exactly. They need to die. Period.
Not necessarily. None of us are adept military commanders, even if we may or may not have observed the principles behind it. He is only going to be acting on the advice given to him by the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the pentagon.
What I meant was more along the lines of he's cleared for more, and cleared for more on how this could affect our country (along with all that military advisers crap)
But we don't need to talk about Talifghan right now.
If we neglect all other countries and never talk to them about politics or anything, and they're presented with an opportunity in wartime, they won't have a very good view of us.
The UN and NATO won't like them very much either if they refuse to fight in a coalition fight either, especially when they're using us as their police chief. As always. Our own fights need to stay our own, unless they present a danger to the third parties, such as the United Kingdom and Canada's involvement in Afghanistan; the Taliban and Al-Quaida present a very real danger and threat to them, and as such they need to help us as a joint force, with us splitting the weight, even if it may not seem so. Fun fact: The longest confirmed sniper kill in history was taken by a Canadian in Afghanistan, helping us and the UK kick the Taliban's a*s.
Having had siblings and friends who've gone to Afghanistan, from what I've learnd from speaking to people who've been there, I do not feel the mission is winnable, or that it's the US or the UKs job to win that mission for the Afghans.
I also resent the reasons we went in there in the first place. Mainly to be a nice obedient poodle to Bush. The only reasons I would advocate intervention in the reason would be the following:
1) To help the Afghan people. Even though that's not why we went in their, to me it's worthy cause. The majority of the Afghans still want us in there. However, this isn't like Iraq. We cannot nation build in Afghanistan. The reason Iraq qorked was not merely because of troop numbers, but because the will of the people was firmly pro democracy, and they had some institutions already in place there to accomodate those wishes after ISAF forces had left. That simply doesn't exist in Afghanistan. Just look at the current administration, not only are they hopelessley corrupt, rigging elections etc.,they also create laws no better than the Taliban ie., allowing men to rape their wives whenever they feel like it.
2) To help prevent terrorism in the UK by attacking the source of it overseas. It is true that the majority of terrorists in the UK were trained in Helmand. However, instead of getting rid of those training camps, we have just moved them over the porous border into Waziristan, which is where the real problem is now.
Uh, not, Obama's approval ratings over seas are 52% higher because he didn't start a war with the middle east. I still find it funny how people can't see that people are just using Bush as the ultimate scapegoat, if you have a problem in your life, it's Bush's fault. I'd give Obama a 6/10, he seems to be trying to help but it isn't accounting to much, and really all he has said that he was going to do was fix healthcare and pull out of Iraq, which he hasn't really done. By the end of his presidency i'd probably rate him a 2/10 for all his failed promises but we will see.
Did I pin anything on him? No. Sooo . . . yeah . . . .
