Who would you rather have as President? Obama or...?
@Marvin- Wow, you like making stuff up don't you? "Obama appears to have avoided even a limited strike" Not true. That's actually what he's been pushing for or did you miss the media blitz earlier this week. "forced the Russian government (not to mention China and the U.N.) to support his initiative" Really? So you're saying Russia and China are happy with Obama bombing Syria now. "fabricated claims of Iraq WMD" Not true. We know what he had because we gave a lot of it to him. It's a big jump from "didn't provide evidence" to "fabricated evidence". There is plenty of evidence that WMDs existed in Iraq from both parties. "both of which proved truthful" Really? When was that? Not finding something is very different from proving something doesn't exist. Nobody, except for you, has made the claim that they PROVED the WMDs didn't exist. "launched the longest (war)" The war in I
George W Bush is responsible for the deaths of over 100,000 innocent people and is a far right war criminal.?
Nope
Bush vs. Obama... Can someone who is into Political Science help me out here?
I am trying to differentiate between the things that both Presidents have done. Here is the question: Although the foreign policy of the Obama administration has been surprisingly similar to that of its predecessor, there are some subtle differences between the policies of Barack Obama and George W. Bush concerning the war on terror. Assign the following policies to either Obama or Bush by dragging them to the appropriate column. 1) Applied Huntington’s clash of civilizations thesis to the war on terror 2) Sanctions the only way to convince Iran to give up nuclear weapons research 3) Introduced the concept of preventive war to avoid future conflicts with nations that pose a threat to U.S. security 4) Espoused relationship based on mutual interest and respect between U.S. and Muslim world 5) Would engage Iran in dialogue regarding Iran’s efforts to develop nuclear weapons 6) Set timetable for withdrawal of combat troops from Iraq 7) Implemented military surge to stem violence in Iraq 8) Implemented military surge to subdue resurgent Taliban forces in Afghanistan ---------------------------------------... Thanks!
Should Dick Cheney, George Bush, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton stand trial at The Hague for war crimes in Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria and Libya?
Tell me something please, do you know the definition of “war crimes” or are you simply parroting the talking point of your favorite “liberal” professor?I'll give an example of some: genocide (attempting to kill people based on their ethnicity or religion), mass murder of civilians, deliberate targeting of civilians, executing prisoners without trial, systematic torture of prisoners, using WMD's against civilians, deliberate murder of children (not incidental or collateral).Please tell be where and when any of the people you seem to so fervently want tried have committed or ordered any of the actions I listed above? The simple fact is, they haven't. Conducting a war or other military action is not, in and of itself, a “war crime” so attempting to take a national leader who you happen to disagree with to court in hopes of an outcome favorable to your cause du jour, is not sensible or particularly useful.
Obama didn't start any wars like George W. Bush. Why don't people realize it?
Obama may not have started any wars, but what he did was cause a very large power void.That void, coupled with weapons, money and training by CIA operatives in Syria allowed a very large terrorist cell to grow, and claim large swaths of land.ISIS(ISIL) would go to claim large part of Syria, and Iraq (About half of each country would fall under ISIS control). They even were on the borders of Baghdad, a major victory if they had won.ISIS would go on to the a very large organization with support in Africa, SEA, and even inside of the UK and America. Several dozen bombings, shootings, acid attacks, stabbings and (for lack of a better term) vehicular manslaughters would happen in the name of ISIS.This happened because back during his election he promised an end to the war in Iraq, and peace in the middle east. He did accomplish some goals of his by giving a speech in the capitol of a Muslim country, and during which time he called for improved mutual understanding and relations between the Islamic world and the West and said both should do more to confront violent extremism, and called for peace between Israel, and Palestine, and promised the removal of US troops from Iraq. He won a Nobel Peace Prize for this speech, which is important that people understand that he won this for his actions in trying to extend a open hand to all Arab Nations.He would remove combat troops, and later almost all troops from Iraq (there was still some support and advisement troops in the country. ISIS would use this gap in power in Iraq and the opportunity to push through Iraq with relative ease.Opinion:Personally I think Obama had the right intentions, ending a decade long war, and trying to bring open discussions to Arab Nations, which at the time looked bad in international spotlight. However, this seemed to have backfired on him in the long run. I do not believe that Obama did anything with the intention of causing more terrorism, or extending any war on any front. I personally believe that Obama was just naive about the situations, he should have had better advisers.