Renegade Public Forums
C&C: Renegade --> Dying since 2003™, resurrected in 2024!
Home » General Discussions » Heated Discussions and Debates » Is Obamas Muslimness Bad?
Re: Is Obamas Muslimness Bad? [message #390001 is a reply to message #389979] Wed, 10 June 2009 14:43 Go to previous messageGo to previous message
u6795 is currently offline  u6795
Messages: 1261
Registered: March 2006
Location: Maryland
Karma:
General (1 Star)
Dover wrote on Wed, 10 June 2009 17:01

u6795 wrote on Wed, 10 June 2009 13:55

Dover wrote on Wed, 10 June 2009 16:51

Gen_Blacky wrote on Wed, 10 June 2009 12:43

no military experience.


I love how people keep bringing up military experience like it matters. The two widely-accepted best presidents America has ever had (F.D.R. and Lincoln) both had little to no military experience. F.D.R. had none and Lincoln had six months in a militia that never saw any combat.

It's more or less because Military Presidents tend to have a deeper understanding of the armed forces and use them more wisely. Perhaps not always, but it is often the case. People were worried about Obama because we're kind of in the middle of two wars, regardless.


F.D.R. and Lincoln. World War II and the civil war. Look at two presidents that are known for their military experience: Eisenhower and Kennedy. Vietnam was an abject failure and so was the Bay of Pigs invasion.

Give me one example of a "military" president using armed forces wisely. Major (and preferably recent) examples, not Washington putting down some farmers rebellion or something.

How about George Bush's management of the war in Afghanistan? Up until recently that had been going smoothly (I'm not insinuating it's at all tied to Obama) and the Taliban has been nearly crushed (however, once again, recently they have begun a resurgence). Al Qaida has effectively been driven out of Afghanistan, mostly as a result of expert commanders on the part of the United States, but without the freedom to operate and the support of Bush the military would not be as formidable as it is toda. Iraq, while short sighted in its planning, was executed masterfully and its people were freed from a pretty oppressive douchebag.

George H.W. Bush sent the armed forces to Iraq the first time in 1991 along with the backing of a significant coalition and completely obliterated the Iraqi military in a matter of weeks.

Dwight Eisenhower commanded the Allied Forces to total victory in Europe. FDR was a wise politician, but as with ALL Presidents, true responsibility for victory lies within the military leaders. He went on to serve as President during the Korean War, an admittedly nasty war that fortunately was prevented from escalating into another world conflict, and was behind the cease fire. He also maintains one of the highest Presidential approval ratings.

Kennedy was assassinated only a short while into major US involvement in Vietnam. We'd already been involved there since like, what, the 50's? Lyndon Johnson was President for the majority of the war. Kennedy was also largely behind the resolution of the Cuban Missile Crisis and averted a lot of death through political means, rather than the various military solutions proposed (full invasion, airstrikes, etc). A wise use of the military, in many cases, is no use. The Bay of Pigs, however, is only tied to Kennedy by his authorization. The mission was planned by the CIA months in advance and he merely received a copy to approve or disapprove. Most likely promised of its success by the CIA and seeking to eliminate an enemy in the Caribbean without the use of our own forces, Kennedy said yes. That is the extent of his involvement.

Nixon I cannot defend. He largely escalated the war and caused thousands more deaths irresponsibly, albeit with good intentions (to end the war honorably through victory) he still underestimated the Vietnamese entirely.

Going back further, Theodore Roosevelt served honorably for several years and went on to make increase the world standing of the United States tenfold. The Great White Fleet basically solidified our role as a world power and international respect in dealings with foreign nations. Even farther back, of course, is George Washington. I don't know, he didn't really do much. I mean, aside from leading our army to victory over the British and establishing the United States, he was a pretty chill guy.

yeah

[Updated on: Wed, 10 June 2009 15:16]

Report message to a moderator

[Message index]
 
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Previous Topic: Fuck the new system to get unlocks in TF2 is gay!
Next Topic: Nod or NOD
Goto Forum:
  

[ Syndicate this forum (XML) ] [ RSS ] [ PDF ]

Current Time: Thu Apr 24 08:43:11 MST 2025

Total time taken to generate the page: 0.01559 seconds
.:: Contact :: Home ::.

Powered by: FUDforum 420.69.
Copyright ©2001-2023 FUDforum Bulletin Board Software