Was Obama a good president?

[DangerZ0neX 13,741]

[mr quick 10,511]

Whilst I'm not exactly an advocate of the US drone program given that it hasn't actually succeeded in achieving any of its strategic objectives (if anything, the inverse), it's worth noting that the collateral damage caused by strikes during Obama's tenure is much, much lower than conventional airstrikes. A ratio of 1 civilian casualty for every 14.1 militants according to figures compiles by the New America Foundation trumps pretty much all conventional airstrikes.

 

F*cking yay?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I mean, there was text in the comic but alright. I didn't really have anything to add which wasn't in it.

[Murciélago 8,289]

 

And one who genuinely thinks Obama was "about to start World War 3" demonstrates they have absolutely no understanding of geopolitics, strategic studies, history or international relations, and should be laughed at.

Now I have to laugh at you. You tallking about history, but having no idea what it is. You definitlly have learned history by some moovies, so tallking about such sereous things with you, or that other crazy kids really make no sence. I just glad that nightmare called Obama has finally come to its end.Obama will always be better than Trump, you're just trippin hardcore

[sivispacem 20,166]

 

Whilst I'm not exactly an advocate of the US drone program given that it hasn't actually succeeded in achieving any of its strategic objectives (if anything, the inverse), it's worth noting that the collateral damage caused by strikes during Obama's tenure is much, much lower than conventional airstrikes. A ratio of 1 civilian casualty for every 14.1 militants according to figures compiles by the New America Foundation trumps pretty much all conventional airstrikes.

F*cking yay?

 

Simply pointing out that the whole DRONES ARE EEBIL rhetoric is kinda misplaced.

[mr quick 10,511]

 

 

A ratio of 1 civilian casualty for every 14.1 militants according to figures compiles by the New America Foundation trumps pretty much all conventional airstrikes.

F*cking yay?

 

Simply pointing out that the whole DRONES ARE EEBIL rhetoric is kinda misplaced.

 

 

Though it might be something of a lesser evil, that doesn't mean it's not an evil at all.

[sivispacem 20,166]

 

 

 

A ratio of 1 civilian casualty for every 14.1 militants according to figures compiles by the New America Foundation trumps pretty much all conventional airstrikes.

F*cking yay?

 

Simply pointing out that the whole DRONES ARE EEBIL rhetoric is kinda misplaced.

 

Though it might be something of a lesser evil, that doesn't mean it's not an evil at all.

Taking issue with airstrikes of any kind being used in extrajudicial targeted killings is totally reasonable. Specifically citing "drones" as problematic just panders to technophobic hysteria, especially given they're not actually "drones" but remotely piloted aircraft.

[cj2000 775]

 

You tallking about history, but having no idea what it is.

And exactly what technical merit or qualification do you have to speak on the subject? Your posts are nothing but circular logic and meaningless drivel.

 

You definitlly have learned history by some moovies

Says the person trying to pretend that a direct great military power conflict of any kind is feasible in the modern era. That really is the stuff of fiction.

 

Let's look at this analytically from the perspective of game theory. The US has no real benefit to be gained from a direct military confrontation with Russia; ergo there is no strategic drive behind direct aggression. A policy of attempting to counteract Russian aggression against NATO powers is, however, eminently sensible. It won't lead to a direct military conflict at all, much less a cataclysmic one. It's simply achieved through mending bridges in areas of existing agreement whilst remaining firm on Russian interventionism against NATO members.

 

Conversely, Russia benefits strategically from attempting to extend influence into neighbouring states including NATO ones, but would not benefit from direct military confrontation with the US as it would be unwinnable. Ergo, small victories driven by covert action are the most we're likely to see pursued.

 

so tallking about such sereous things with you

I do find the irony of someone who can scarcely string a sentence, much less a coherent argument, together, descending into ad hominems and calling out someone who is, let's be honest here, clearly infinitely more qualified to speak on the subject delightful.

 

If WWIII is a viable concern, you'll be able to coherently explain a hypothetical set of likely circumstances leading to its breakout.

 

I´d like to see how you´ll explain something in a languge, that´s not yours.

Man that stuff from game theory doesn´t worck, when it comes to something like war and specially World War 3, this is prooved by the history. Only in the 80s there were more than 2 times when Warld War 3 was about to begin and during the previous Cold War about a duzen of times.

Edited January 17, 2017 by cj2000

[Piggsy pls 1,808]

 

I seriously can't tell if you're trolling or not.

So everibody against Obama is a troll? Yes I really think, Obama was the worth US president ever. If people from Obama fanclub can´t live with this, it´s not my problem.No, just your reasonings are completely out of touch with reality.

[cj2000 775]

 

 

I seriously can't tell if you're trolling or not.

So everibody against Obama is a troll? Yes I really think, Obama was the worth US president ever. If people from Obama fanclub can´t live with this, it´s not my problem.

No, just your reasonings are completely out of touch with reality.

 

So what exactly is not reality? I didn´t said Obama started World War 3, which would be nonsence, but he was really close to do that. People having not seen the previous Cold War think, because the so called "game theory" saing World War 3 is imposible, it´s the truth.

May be after 20 or even 30 years we´ll know the truth about how close we were to World War 3. So yo all can continue calling me insane, really don´t care.

Edited January 17, 2017 by cj2000

[sivispacem 20,166]

I´d like to see how you´ll explain something in a languge, that´s not yours.

 

That's your problem, not mine. I appreciate you're not a native English speaker but that doesn't excuse your complete lack of anything resembling a coherent argument.

 

Man that stuff from game theory doesn´t worck

*Citation needed.

 

when it comes to something like war and specially World War 3, this is prooved by the history.

How can it be? If it never took place, which it hasn't, it by definition cannot be proven by history. Also, there's scarcely a single conflict or escalation of tensions between two rational state actors the outcome of which could not be predicted through game theory. I challenge you to cite a single one.

 

Only in the 80s there were more than 2 times when Warld War 3 was about to begin

Depends how you define "about". The closest we came in the 80s was Able Archer '83, and that wasn't that close. There's never been a direct conventional exchange between the US/NATO and Russia, much less an escalation to tactical nuclear weapons which would precipitate a significant strategic nuclear exchange.

 

You are, quite simply, talking sh*t. You've proposed no viable hypothesis, given no coherent argument, and fundamentally don't understand geopolitics or strategic theory at all.

 

because the so called "game theory" saing World War 3 is imposible

If that's your take-away from my comments it's no wonder you've got yourself into a horribly muddled mess.

[cj2000 775]

 

I´d like to see how you´ll explain something in a languge, that´s not yours.

That's your problem, not mine. I appreciate you're not a native English speaker but that doesn't excuse your complete lack of anything resembling a coherent argument.

 

Man that stuff from game theory doesn´t worck

*Citation needed.

 

when it comes to something like war and specially World War 3, this is prooved by the history.

How can it be? If it never took place, which it hasn't, it by definition cannot be proven by history. Also, there's scarcely a single conflict or escalation of tensions between two rational state actors the outcome of which could not be predicted through game theory. I challenge you to cite a single one.

 

Only in the 80s there were more than 2 times when Warld War 3 was about to begin

Depends how you define "about". The closest we came in the 80s was Able Archer '83, and that wasn't that close. There's never been a direct conventional exchange between the US/NATO and Russia, much less an escalation to tactical nuclear weapons which would precipitate a significant strategic nuclear exchange.

 

You are, quite simply, talking sh*t. You've proposed no viable hypothesis, given no coherent argument, and fundamentally don't understand geopolitics or strategic theory at all.

 

because the so called "game theory" saing World War 3 is imposible

If that's your take-away from my comments it's no wonder you've got yourself into a horribly muddled mess.

 

Able Archer '83 wasn´t the closes one and the reason it didn´t led to World War 3 was, because Regan was smart enough to make some deescalation steps, something Obama is not able to do. Like I said that was not the closest one in the 80s, the really dangerous sitaution was when some russian satelite had noticed a false misle start in USA, so the comander of the coresponding misle base recived an order to strike back and launch the missles, he refused, but would he complied with the order, we wouldn´t have this conversation.

However the discusion about World War 3 is pointles, as like I said we´ll know how close we were only in 20, 30 or even 50 years.

Edited January 17, 2017 by cj2000

[Sunrise Driver 2,070]

 

 

 

I seriously can't tell if you're trolling or not.

So everibody against Obama is a troll? Yes I really think, Obama was the worth US president ever. If people from Obama fanclub can´t live with this, it´s not my problem.

No, just your reasonings are completely out of touch with reality.

 

So what exactly is not reality? I didn´t said Obama started World War 3, which would be nonsence, but he was really close to do that. People having not seen the previous Cold War think, because the so called "game theory" saing World War 3 is imposible, it´s the truth.

May be after 20 or even 30 years we´ll know the truth about how close we were to World War 3. So yo all can continue calling me insane, really don´t care.

 

So Obama was spineless but he almost started WW3...cool story.

[cj2000 775]

 

 

 

 

I seriously can't tell if you're trolling or not.

So everibody against Obama is a troll? Yes I really think, Obama was the worth US president ever. If people from Obama fanclub can´t live with this, it´s not my problem.

No, just your reasonings are completely out of touch with reality.

 

So what exactly is not reality? I didn´t said Obama started World War 3, which would be nonsence, but he was really close to do that. People having not seen the previous Cold War think, because the so called "game theory" saing World War 3 is imposible, it´s the truth.

May be after 20 or even 30 years we´ll know the truth about how close we were to World War 3. So yo all can continue calling me insane, really don´t care.

 

So Obama was spineless but he almost started WW3...cool story.

 

I said already, that gogletranslator gave me the wrong word wit spineles. However Obama has no idea what responsibility is and this is something a leader of a superpower must know. Really not surprising as all democratic presidents after Kenedy were just clowns.

[Sunrise Driver 2,070]

Cheap trolling. Might get a chuckle, but not good laugh.

[Alihunter 238]

I guess 6 pages enough to prove obama was good.

[Piggsy pls 1,808]

 

 

 

I seriously can't tell if you're trolling or not.

So everibody against Obama is a troll? Yes I really think, Obama was the worth US president ever. If people from Obama fanclub can´t live with this, it´s not my problem.

No, just your reasonings are completely out of touch with reality.

 

So what exactly is not reality? I didn´t said Obama started World War 3, which would be nonsence, but he was really close to do that. People having not seen the previous Cold War think, because the so called "game theory" saing World War 3 is imposible, it´s the truth.

May be after 20 or even 30 years we´ll know the truth about how close we were to World War 3. So yo all can continue calling me insane, really don´t care.

Please explain to me how Obama, of all presidents, was the one "close to starting WWIII". There's reason to criticize Obama for certain actions in the middle east, but this is just asinine. And "Trump's done more for America than Obama already", seriously? Edited January 17, 2017 by Piggsy pls

[sivispacem 20,166]

Able Archer '83 wasn´t the closes one

AA-83 and by association RYAN is commonly accepted by most military and geopolitical historians as the closest to a nuclear exchange between the US and Soviet Union at any point during the Cold War with the exception of the Cuban Missile Crisis. What's more, it wasn't deescalated by Reagan at all. Can you cite the "two incidents" your talking about.

 

Like I said that was not the closest one in the 80s, the really dangerous sitaution was when some russian satelite had noticed a false misle start in USA

This is questionable at best, given that the single individual who dissented and prevented escalation was not the arbiter of the decision to strike and the circumstances were nothing like a first strike.

[cj2000 775]

 

 

 

 

I seriously can't tell if you're trolling or not.

So everibody against Obama is a troll? Yes I really think, Obama was the worth US president ever. If people from Obama fanclub can´t live with this, it´s not my problem.

No, just your reasonings are completely out of touch with reality.

 

So what exactly is not reality? I didn´t said Obama started World War 3, which would be nonsence, but he was really close to do that. People having not seen the previous Cold War think, because the so called "game theory" saing World War 3 is imposible, it´s the truth.

May be after 20 or even 30 years we´ll know the truth about how close we were to World War 3. So yo all can continue calling me insane, really don´t care.

Please explain to me how Obama, of all presidents, was the one "close to starting WWIII. There's reason to criticize Obama for certain actions in the middle east, but this is just asinine. And "Trump's done more for American than Obama already", seriously?

 

Trump forced Ford and some other companies to create jobs in USA instead of going to Mexico.

 

Able Archer '83 wasn´t the closes one

AA-83 and by association RYAN is commonly accepted by most military and geopolitical historians as the closest to a nuclear exchange between the US and Soviet Union at any point during the Cold War with the exception of the Cuban Missile Crisis. What's more, it wasn't deescalated by Reagan at all. Can you cite the "two incidents" your talking about.

 

Like I said that was not the closest one in the 80s, the really dangerous sitaution was when some russian satelite had noticed a false misle start in USA

This is questionable at best, given that the single individual who dissented and prevented escalation was not the arbiter of the decision to strike and the circumstances were nothing like a first strike.

 

Already tolld you the 2 incidents. The first was mentioned by you and the second was that failure of russian satelite. You also mentioned the Cuba crisis.

Like I said this discusion about World War 3 is pointless, as it´ll not hapen after Obama is gone.

 

I know the pic is a bit old.

Edited January 17, 2017 by cj2000

[Niobium 9,007]

obama was a charismatic president, i will give him that. it's a useful trait to have as a politician. but as a president, he was crap. all of you folks in this thread can't seriously be forgetting the wars and drone bombings?

 

EDIT: going through all your posts, at least you acknowledged it, i guess.... i suppose it is possible to acknowledge that obama murdered innocents and still think he was a good president.

Edited January 17, 2017 by Niobium

[sivispacem 20,166]

Already tolld you the 2 incidents. The first was mentioned by you and the second was that failure of russian satelite. You also mentioned the Cuba crisis.

No, you said two excluding AA83. And the satellite incident is much less significant than you make out. Still, I fail to see the relevance as there's no single set of incidents, or even sequence of incidents, even remotely comparable to any of the above mentioned near misses for you to assert we're close to WWII under Obama.

 

i suppose it is possible to acknowledge that obama murdered innocents and still think he was a good president.

Good is relative to other presidents, and can you think of one who hasn't been responsible for civilian deaths?

[ten-a-penny 7,151]

obama was a charismatic president, i will give him that. it's a useful trait to have as a politician. but as a president, he was crap. all of you folks in this thread can't seriously be forgetting the wars and drone bombings?

 

EDIT: going through all your posts, at least you acknowledged it, i guess.... i suppose it is possible to acknowledge that obama murdered innocents and still think he was a good president.

.... He didn't kill innocents. Cutthroat ISIS hiding in civilian areas is (well, are) the reason why innocents dies/d.

 

The exact same scenario happened in Benghazi when dumbass Khalifa Haftar wanted to free the city from "terrorists" (even though Benghazi was terrorist-free; extremists existed yes but they kept to themselves ). People had to hide their weaponry in areas close to civilians and Haftar's bombings had to land on citizens. I'm not speaking out of my ass on this one (war on Benghazi, that is), I had a friend of mine who used to live there. She said it herself.

[El Dildo 14,397]

Like I said this discusion about World War 3 is pointless, as it´ll not hapen after Obama is gone.

...implying that World War 3 would've started under Obama? right, because Obama had almost 10 years to start another war and he didn't even come close.

 

your argument sucks almost as much as your spelling and grammar.

[DareYokel 6,082]

 

Like I said this discusion about World War 3 is pointless, as it´ll not hapen after Obama is gone.

...implying that World War 3 would've started under Obama? right, because Obama had almost 10 years to start another war and he didn't even come close.

I don't know man. Remember all of those FEMA camps that he opened and all the death squads...or was it squids. And let's not forget that he unleashed Ebola. And he's black so it's all true.

[richard1997jones 423]

Obama will probably do a better job of Trump but he took presidency when America's economy was at a low point. I know it still has debt but at least its not having to worry as much about it these days.

[MadHammerThorsteen 799]

I'll never understand why people care if I vote or not.

I have my preferences (and I have an intense anti-Trump preference), but in the end, I don't honestly have much personal stake in where things go as long as I have my rights. Voting for a president shouldn't have a damn thing to do with rights. The day it becomes about rights, the system is already FUBAR.

Edited January 17, 2017 by Majesty Dreamworth

[Eutyphro 2,918]

Simply pointing out that the whole DRONES ARE EEBIL rhetoric is kinda misplaced.

It's not. Drones are evil. They are cowardly and evil.

 

A ratio of 1 civilian casualty for every 14.1 militants according to figures compiles by the New America Foundation trumps pretty much all conventional airstrikes.

And you have faith in this data because..? You actually expect the US to be honest about their own pseudo criminal behaviour?

 

Edit: I looked up the foundation, and it is quite clearly based on very incomplete data. I'd say your '1 in 14.1' figure is quite meaningless, considering how incomplete the data is and how non transparent the US is about this practice.

 

Articles that make more reasonable guesses of far higher numbers of collateral damage also easily can be found https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2014/nov/24/-sp-us-drone-strikes-kill-1147

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/03/the-obama-administrations-drone-strike-dissembling/473541/

Edited January 18, 2017 by Eutyphro

[Niobium 9,007]

 

i suppose it is possible to acknowledge that obama murdered innocents and still think he was a good president.

Good is relative to other presidents, and can you think of one who hasn't been responsible for civilian deaths?

 

 

uhh no?

 

EDIT: obama just gave chelsea manning a pardon.

Edited January 17, 2017 by Niobium

[X S 6,180]

 

 

 

Wait, the Left has smuggies, too? Man the torpedoes!

[Sir Michael 5,279]

Only one I can think of is William Henry Harrison. Granted he died a month into his term, I think we can safely say he doesn't have a civilian body count.

[El Dildo 14,397]

Only one I can think of is William Henry Harrison. Granted he died a month into his term, I think we can safely say he doesn't have a civilian body count.

to be fair, Harrison was pro-slavery and as a US general he led numerous attacks on Native American Indians