Having A Pushover President Has Now Become Extremely Dangerous.

Originally posted by _BoneZ_

George W. Bush was the worst president in my lifetime, and probably the worst president to ever hold office in this country. With Romney incorporating roughly 70% of Bush's previous administration, you can't even fathom the destruction that will befall this country if Romney were to become president. Not to mention the further decline of the reputation of the U.S. in the eyes of the world since Romney has already made it clear he's going to be a war president, having threatened Russia and Iran at the RNC.

May whatever deity you believe in have mercy on all of us if Romney becomes president. We don't need, nor can we afford another Bush presidency.


Having said that, yes, Obama has broken nearly every promise he made when he first ran for president, but at least he's the one we "know".

We just have to stick it out another four years, and pray that Jesse Ventura decides to run for office.

edit on 6-10-2012 by _BoneZ_ because: (no reason given)

Actually, I'm going to tell all of you something crazy, but hey, this is the tinfoil capital of the internet right? If there really is a left in this country, they would benefit from Romney being is office more than Obama. Obama is simply the same old fascism in nice clothing. At least with Romney you will know what you are getting.

I don't think even the GOP wants him in office. I've been registered GOP 12 years, still am. They knocked down my door and blew up my phone every election for assistance, but not this time. The worry is this: If he gets in and he can't fix things, the party will be shut out for a long time and it may not come back. Bush effectively destroyed the moderate wing in the GOP and the Koch Brothers killed it entirely with the Tea Party. If the economy stays in the crapper there will be no moderates left for the GOP to trot out. Let them dig their grave, maybe something better will come out of it,

One benefit of having Romney is perhaps there will be a real mobilization of the Left in this country. I'm not talking about Democrats as they aren't the left. If we are going to see real action in this country we need an actual alternative to the far right. Until the left actually steps up there isn't going to be any movement toward the center.

Originally posted by PatrickGarrow17
While Obama is certainly less aggressive in the foreign policy realm than is the norm in America, I take this OP as as an overreaction to ONE debate.

And honestly, I favor Obama's shift in tone. This is no longer America's world, we have to realize that our relationship with emerging countries like China and India has to be defined by cooperation and not dictation by the US.

We are exiting the age of unilateral world power and hegemony. Fighting this shift based on a lingering attitude of absolute American exceptionalism may prove to be dangerous.

edit on 10/6/2012 by PatrickGarrow17 because: (no reason given)

If you have paid any attention at all Obama's shift in tone has been from negotiations to military use over the past 4 years. Many of the Bush tactics Obama claimed to despised he has embraced and even gone beyond what Bush did.

reply to post by OccamsRazor04


Obama's rhetoric carries a much more agreeable tone.

And where has he gone beyond Bush? Bush acted unilaterally, Obama went into Libya with NATO. Drone strikes are a product of advanced technology not the administration, and would have been carried out by Bush equally and will be by Romney if elected.

Obama hasn't been the peace maker that was advertised in '08, but his attitude is still directed toward that goal.

reply to post by PatrickGarrow17

Just a small thing, but I was struck by

And where has he gone beyond Bush? Bush acted unilaterally, Obama went into Libya with NATO.

Didn't Bush bring the matter to Congress to get their approval under the War Powers Act?

I'm also confused about the "unilateral" statement you made. I started by looking at Wiki (as is my wont) and found:

At 5:34 a.m. Baghdad time on March 20, 2003 (9:34 p.m., March 19 EST) the surprise military invasion of Iraq began. There was no declaration of war. The 2003 invasion of Iraq, led by U.S. army General Tommy Franks, began under the codename "Operation Iraqi Liberation", later renamed "Operation Iraqi Freedom", the UK codename Operation Telic, and the Australian codename Operation Falconer. Coalition forces also cooperated with Kurdish Peshmerga forces in the north. Approximately forty other governments, the "U.S.-led coalition against Iraq," participated by providing troops, equipment, services, security, and special forces, with 248,000 soldiers from the United States, 45,000 British soldiers, 2,000 Australian soldiers and 194 Polish soldiers from Special Forces unit GROM sent to Kuwait for the invasion. The invasion force was also supported by Iraqi Kurdish militia troops, estimated to number upwards of 70,000. (Emphasis added)

www.ask.com...

Perhaps I don't understand what you mean by "unilateral."

Originally posted by PatrickGarrow17
reply to post by OccamsRazor04

 

Obama's rhetoric carries a much more agreeable tone.

And where has he gone beyond Bush? Bush acted unilaterally, Obama went into Libya with NATO. Drone strikes are a product of advanced technology not the administration, and would have been carried out by Bush equally and will be by Romney if elected.

Obama hasn't been the peace maker that was advertised in '08, but his attitude is still directed toward that goal.

edit on 10/9/2012 by PatrickGarrow17 because: (no reason given)

Where did Bush act unilaterally? Drone strikes have been EXPANDED under Obama to include killing US citizens. NDAA? Guantanamo Bay? The list goes on and on. The same tactics Obama called Bush out on Obama adopted and EXPANDED on. It's nice you like his tone though, because he does always say one thing and then do something else. If you can't like the action you can at least like the tone the lie is said in.

reply to post by charles1952


Arguing with Obama supporters is an exercise in futility. The facts are not on their side.

reply to post by charles1952

The most visible of Bush's unilateral actions consisted of retaliatory military strikes in Afghanistan

press.princeton.edu...

That's from a 2003 book printed by Princeton. Nearly every president acts unilaterally at times, following 9/11 was an example. The Iraq war had some unilateral-ish elements, thought it wasn't completely.

The Iraq war was not sanctioned by the UN where the Libya invasion was. Iraq was a completely American led initiative, Libya was NATO. Romney's foreign policy seems to be more like Bushes in asserting American will with less regard to the opinion of the global community, compared to what Obama promotes which is more cooperative than competitive and dominant. Maybe it's best to see unilateralism as more of a scale with regard to overall foreign policy attitude as opposed to a technical term applied action by action.


With Obama as president I perceive the risk of major conflict escalation in the ME as lower.


And Occams, come on dude you're one of the most partisan people around here. Don't post with nothing to say but some kind of demeaning comment.

reply to post by OccamsRazor04

If you have paid any attention at all Obama's shift in tone has been from negotiations to military use over the past 4 years. Many of the Bush tactics Obama claimed to despised he has embraced and even gone beyond what Bush did.

Great point. The Shadow Govt runs things. I think Bamma found that out early on, but he still wants to run things his way. I believe Carter was the first Tr-Lateral Prez. Reagan wasn't but everyone else around him was CFR. Bush is Skull and Bones, Clinton is Rhodes Scholar, Bush Jr Bonesman, Obama is Kenyan Marxist
Did you hear the Axelrod communist making excuses for him and calling Romney a liar? Someone says it in the media and then everyone else parrots it, even on here.

reply to post by PatrickGarrow17

The Iraq war was not sanctioned by the UN where the Libya invasion was. Iraq was a completely American led initiative, Libya was NATO. Romney's foreign policy seems to be more like Bushes in asserting American will with less regard to the opinion of the global community

Because it is our sovereign right as a nation to do things without the express consent of the UN(The Seat of the One World Govt). Bush did not however go without the consent of Congress.
That is where Obama follows the dictates of the UN community but without consent of Congress. See the difference?
Not that Bush isn't part of the NWO, he just didn't flagrantly go around Congress.

reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus


Yes I do see the difference, and I think listening to the UN is just as important as listening to Congress.

China Warns World War III Being Planned To Oust Obama
a World War China says is being planned within the next few weeks in order to oust US President Barack Obama from office.
Obama cant wait to get out of Office
Looks like he will be there excuse war...
they say is another Jimmy Carter

reply to post by PatrickGarrow17

Dear PatrickGarrow17,

Thank you for explaining that your use of the word "unilateral" is different from what I am used to seeing. That clears that problem up nicely. But it brings up a new problem.

The Iraq war was not sanctioned by the UN where the Libya invasion was. Iraq was a completely American led initiative, Libya was NATO.

Yes I do see the difference, and I think listening to the UN is just as important as listening to Congress.

The War Powers Act is supposed to be followed when the President commits us to war. It is American law binding on American presidents. Whatever the UN says, yes or no, the President needs the consent of Congress. But having the UN on your side, does not mean you can ignore Congress.

From a strict point of view, Iraq was far more legal than Libya. Now it might be nicer, or better policy, to get the UN's go ahead, but I don't see why an American president has to.

Unless, maybe, you're suggesting that the US military shouldn't do anything until the UN says it can? If that's what you believe, I think some ATSers will argue vehemently with you.

With respect,
Charles1952

Electing a republican or democrat president guarantees a pushover president. That is why they lock-out all the small parties on the pretense of needing at least 15% of popular support. They ptb can count on the media they bought to keep it perpetually under 15%.

Both parties will never admit 9-11 was a false flag to usher in the nwo for good. It happened under bush jr watch and then obama took the ball and ran.

Then we got all those quantative easing packages which reek of covert facism, to supposedly bring back jobs. You don't bring back jobs unless you implement tariffs and other protectionist measures. It never was about bringing back jobs or creating new ones. Big business and finance companies made an absolute killing at the tax-payer's expense.

I am suprised more people on ATS don't know the truth or maybe they are scared?