Was Bush less eloquent than Obama?
Bush had many flaws and a few bright spots, but eloquence was not one of them. He did have a moral compass, though seemed to be politically lost. It is amazing that he won a second term.Obama is less likeable, less approachable, more cerebral, analytical, and less prone to direct action, but his ability to convey a point far exceeds that of Bush. While Obama is more eloquent, he also comes across as more "preachy" and "I know better than you, so you better listen..." Bush did not have that annoying pedantic air that Obama does. But Obama at least uses and pronounces words correctly.
Who's bombed more countries Bush or Obama?
Obomber
Has America bombed another country today?
If they have I hope they hit the right one!
Is Trump a bigger warmonger than Hillary, Obama & Bush combined?
Only one of the four announced plans to start a war before even before an election that could get them to the oval office. That one is Hillary Clinton. “I want the Iranians to know that if I’m the president, we will attack Iran.” Video below.In second place, by at least one measure, Obama reigns above the other two. During his presidency, 7 countries were bombed according to Ryan Lizza, Washington correspondent for the New Yorker. PunditFact says that number is low and should actually be at least 8. Lizza says Bush bombed 4 countries to Obama’s 7, while PunditFact puts Bush’s number at 6, but both sources agree that Obama bombed more countries.In last place is Trump. Asked during his campaign about whether or not he’d bomb particular countries, unlike Hillary, he pointed out that it is unwise to expose one’s hand and it is preferable to keep an opponent guessing. Faced with threats from and missile tests by North Korea in May of 2017, Trump had clear justification for launching a pre-emptive strike against the rogue nation and leveling Pyongyang. For whatever reasons, despite assembling naval forces in the Sea of Japan, he decided not to. Thus the biggest warmonger is Hillary, followed by Obama, then Bush, then Trump. This might change over time, if for instance Trump bombs 20 countries next week, but so far, he has bombed fewer countries and threatened fewer countries than the other three.
Did Obama deserve the Nobel Peace Prize when he bombed seven countries afterwards?
It’s important to remember that he was awarded the Peace Prize in 2009, he had just arrived after the Bush era where America was portrayed as a nation that was brutalising the world by having an illegal war in Iraq and it’s somewhat aimless occupation of Afghanistan and to some extent Pakistan.Obama opened up to the World and introduced a more open and friendly USA, something most International communities had not seen before as yes, even prior to Bush the USA was always seen as a nation that disrupted countries to cause wars for their own profit.Unfortunately, Obama made the same mistake that the USA keeps on making and that is to get involved in global politics at every drop. Instead of focusing on stabilising Iraq and putting a close to Al-Qaeda, he went prototypical USA path and seemed intent on installing USA backed puppets, but as has happened before, these puppets went out of control and have made things even worse.He would never win a Nobel Peace Prize now, but you can’t really remove them. There have been plenty of other Nobel Peace Prize winners of the past that are highly questionable, some of whom have had much more chequered pasts than what Obama had in 2009 (Henry Kissinger is probably one of the most notable examples).
Should President Obama bomb Assad?
While I feel comfortable commenting on military capabilities and can speculate on hypothetical scenarios, discussing whether the president of the US should bomb the head of state of a UN member country is an entirely different matter.Bombing Assad would probably involve declaring war on Syria, whereas possible reasons for starting a new war are not only missing, but have not even been discussed in mainstream media for a few years. To wit, Assad’s agreement to get rid of his stockpiles of chemical weapons eliminated the last credible (although not necessarily compelling) reason discussed previously. So, I’d first like to see understand a better justification and answers to the obvious legal questions. Also, who is going to support those strikes? If the US Congress and the UNSC authorize those strikes, then sure - go ahead. If both are against, then no. If one of them authorizes strikes, and the other does not, then it’s the details that will matter.A different aspect of this question is whether the US actually can bomb Assad and get away with this (if not, then it’s probably better not try). The answer to that question is rather straightforwardSyrian air force and air defense are not an obstacle, as demonstrated before,Russian air defense (including the S-400 stationed in Hmeimim) can be circumvented by using a mix of below-the-radar cruise missiles, high-altitude stealth planes, heavy jamming, drones and decoys, etc.The Russian air force (also stationed in Hmeimim) is more of an issue, but can also be dealt with by similar means, as well as by using a much larger attack force approaching from 3–4 directions (Turkey, Eastern Syria, Jordan/KSA, and Mediterranean) and drawing out the handful of fighter planes Russia has left in Syria.The last two options must also be complemented by preparing powerful responses to Russia’s firing one or more missiles at US planes, and articulating some of them to Russian military leadership. Essentially, attacking US forces over Syria would endanger the entire Russian corps in Syria and, perhaps, all naval assets in the Mediterranean. Technically speaking (this is a speculation), the US might be able to invoke NATO Article V whereas an attack by Russia on the US in the Northern Hemisphere would be considered an attack on all NATO members, notably Turkey, which can then close the Turkish Straits to Russia, leaving Russian forces in Syria undersupplied - they may have to wrap up their entire campaign and leave.
Was Obama the worst president?
History will not be kind to a man who doubled the national debt, and rammed through a horrible so-called affordable health care bill that will raise premiums and add to the already 18 trillion dollar debt. He may not be the worst but he will be close.