Vet's comments on Obama

[Defeatist Elitist]

Alright, I understand the Saudi Arabia stuff, and that is something I do not agree with him doing, but showing humility to other countries isn't a bad thing. I assume you're all American, so you probably wouldn't realize, but as a non-American, I can say that our perception of the US has actually IMPROVED since Obama got in office. This whole "telling people we have problems" thing isn't making people disrespect the US, it's making us respect the US.

As for him "not saying Obama is terrible", he pretty much does, with lines like;

"I am amazed, angry and determined not to see my country die before I do

but you seem hell bent not to grant me that wish.

I can't figure out what country you are the president of. You fly around the

world telling our friends and enemies despicable lies like:"

"I'd say shame on the both of you but I don't think you like America nor

do I see an ounce of gratefulness in anything you do for the obvious gifts

this country has given you To be without shame or gratefulness is a

dangerous thing for a man sitting in the White House."

"And just who do you think you are telling the American people"

etc

[BK-201]

The mutual respect has been lost with the nod of the head as a response to a bow rather than a bow.

[Defeatist Elitist]

The mutual respect has been lost with the nod of the head as a response to a bow rather than a bow.

Japan has historically been a very nationalistic and proud nation. The Japanese Emperor basically bows to no-one, pretty much by principle.

But regardless, most non Americans have gained respect for Americans, not lost it. Do you have any idea how America under Bush was viewed (whether you think it was rightfully or wrongfully viewed that way) by the rest of the world?

[BK-201]

Bush did fail in America's eyes but Obama is no exception currently. Yes, I do know that America under Bush was laughable but I still disagree with Obama's actions. This is not a Bush vs Obama thing, it's about what is best for America. If Obama keeps his habit of going to countries and saying how bad America is, then pretty soon it will lose its power. Saying it once is enough, it's a harsh but true reality. America won't keep its dignity if Obama calls us out on every little mistake and announce it to the world.

Edited December 1, 2009 by BlackKnight666

[Hero]

Do you have any idea how America under Bush was viewed (whether you think it was rightfully or wrongfully viewed that way) by the rest of the world?

Yes. It wasn't too hot, and things haven't changed much since then.

Alright, I understand the Saudi Arabia stuff, and that is something I do not agree with him doing, but showing humility to other countries isn't a bad thing. I assume you're all American, so you probably wouldn't realize, but as a non-American, I can say that our perception of the US has actually IMPROVED since Obama got in office. This whole "telling people we have problems" thing isn't making people disrespect the US, it's making us respect the US.

It's always good to hear that things are warm with Canada, I'm a fan of your Stephen Harper myself, but Obamamania barely had an affect on US perceptions in rival or outright enemy countries, and perceptions have gotten worse if anything in every such country but Russia. One government is just as bad as another if its policies toward you aren't any better.

Japan has historically been a very nationalistic and proud nation. The Japanese Emperor basically bows to no-one, pretty much by principle.

Japan has changed a lot since 1945. Their Emperors have formally renounced their old pretensions to divinity. Legally they don't have any superiority over the president of the United States, and people in Asia are a lot more aware of that kind of thing than in America. My guess is that Obama was trying to appear humble by bowing deeply to the Emperor, but didn't understand the implications of what he was doing and made himself look like a fool. Bowing to the King of Saudi Arabia was much worse, anyway. There's no excuse for that in my mind.

America won't keep its dignity if Obama calls us out on every little mistake and announce it to the world.

I think you're focusing on the wrong thing. It's alright to admit mistakes, every national leader in every country does that and they wouldn't have anything to do if they thought everything was perfect. The problem is that Obama tries to put the blame on the previous administration and on his constituents for things that aren't totally their fault, and have often been exacerbated or even caused by his administration. Then he goes to boost the ego of some of the biggest villains of the world: King Abdullah, Abbas, Ahmadinejad, you name it.

[General Spoon]

When your battle-hardened field General asks you for

40,000 more troops to complete the mission, give them to him. But if you're

not in this fight to win, then get out. The life of one American soldier is

not worth the best political strategy you're thinking of.

First: I'd love to know how we're supposed to 'win' a fight against an idea. Apparently it's a cause worth forty thousand lives.

I feel that I should point out that the number of soldiers we have lost in Iraq and Afghanistan combined is, compared to previous conflicts, a great deal lower (relatively).

Edited December 1, 2009 by General Spoon

[Meteor]

That's okay, from this post you do too.

I said nothing of the man himself, only his ideas. Thanks for making it personal, though.

Estes is referring to a couple of now-famous incidents. One is where Barack Obama bowed to the Emperor of Japan. Normally this would be no big deal, a bow is comparable to a handshake in Japan, right? In this case, though, Barry bowed deeply from the waste and was answered by only a slight nod of the head, the way superiors have bowed to their inferiors in Japan for hundreds of years. As America's head of state, Obama is legally on the same level as the Japanese Emperor, who is head of state of a country which according to international law has the same status as the USA.

That makes the emperor the jackass, not Obama.

Worse yet, and this is probably what's really digging at Estes, Obama groveled before the King of Saudi Arabia, and didn't even receive a nod in return. That isn't showing respect and human decency to a world leader, it's kowtowing to the monarch in charge of one of the most evil countries to exist during my lifetime. Bush also visited Saudi Arabia a few times, unfortunately, but he never would have bowed to its King in a hundred years.

I'll leave you to ponder what the consequences of showing subservience to countries like Saudi Arabia are.

What would you have Obama do? Ignore him? Renounce his actions then do nothing? Start up another war? There isn't really a good course of action; the chosen one makes us look like a suck up or a friend, but that's better than enemies.

And please, elaborate. I would love to hear what you think will come of this.

I don't get it, are we all supposed to grovel in front of Islamist fascists now?

No, we're supposed to bomb them into loving us!

The best thing I see as realistically possible is for US forces to continue to secure border crossings and the big cities, as well as smashing the Taliban whenever it does something stupid.

[other unrelated stuff removed]

Securing isn't "winning". Mr. Estes wants to win or leave. No compromise. My quarrel is with his desire for an absolute position.

You got it. It's hard to see from the Western hemisphere, but Islamist terrorist groups like Al Qaida are trying to kill people like me. In my opinion, launching the global war on terror is the best thing the United States has done militarily since 1945. Now if only it hadn't been bungled since 2001....

Who exactly are "people like you"?

The Obama policy is certainly a better one for American soldiers there, since they're no longer being given so many impossible orders, but I'd say things are a lot more chaotic and unsafe today for the average Iraqi than they were in 2006. Iran, Syria and Saudi Arabia are sending arms and trained men to terrorist factions just as much now as they were when Bush was in charge, the only difference is that American soldiers are no longer standing in the middle of everything.

I don't see how Obama can be blamed for trying to remove the truck that Bush drove through Iraq's front porch because the hole left over might let in a draft.

From the OP: "A humble man without a political bone in his body, he has never spoken out before about a government official, until now."

So he never had a problem with Bush's policies, but Obama is the one crossing the line? That makes no sense.

[Phoenix]

I guess when it's all said and done, Obama is just going to be hated by one half, and loved by the other, or a variation of that in ratio.

The outbursts that come from him lifting a finger come with the territory. If he's going to even consider "changing" anything, he's going to have to just ignore all the negative voices and get it done. Negative views on Hitler didn't stop the Nazi invasions. If they had... that age in history would have been absolutely laughable.

Well... if he's not performing satisfactory by the next election, pray that democracy works in your favor, and another president steps forward :)

[Blademaster!]

You got it. It's hard to see from the Western hemisphere, but Islamist terrorist groups like Al Qaida are trying to kill people like me. In my opinion, launching the global war on terror is the best thing the United States has done militarily since 1945. Now if only it hadn't been bungled since 2001....

No. Just no. I don't even want to really touch that. Please do more research on the subject and tell me if you still have the same opinion afterwords. Because in addition to how moronic such a notion is, America has done greater things militarily since WWII. The Berlin Airlift says hi.

" We're no longer a Christian nation"

The second I saw this, I was thinking of casting this man's intelligence aside and would think nothing of his letter. But to my surprise, his letter turned out to be fairly decent. Does that mean I agree with what he said? Not really.....

Personally, I think it's still to early and to late(He's been in office for 100 days already.....) to make decisions on how Obama is doing as our president. He lifted the ban on stem cell research so he's doing a pretty good job in my books. Most of the rest of the world loves him too, so he's doing good in that aspect.

As for the economy, I don't even know what to make of it anymore. I've seen so many different articles saying that the economy is getting better or that it is getting worse and I don't even know what to make of it anymore. All I know is that since we live in a capitalist society, this kinda crap is supposed to happen and it will fix itself eventually.

As for the whole Obama bowing to world leaders stuff, who cares? Since he bowed to the Emperor of Japan or whatever, has the U.S. all of a sudden started letting those countries decide what we do instead? No. Personally, I think it should be more of a cause for concern if he insulted such key figures by bowing and stuff. Obama isn't bowing so as to say "you are better than us; please do what ever you want to us!" he's doing it to try and be polite. The fact that people see him bowing as a sign of saying "your better than us" shows how little we Americans have progressed as a country.

At the end of the day, it's not really going to be any president destroying America, but the American people themselves. It's really sad in a way.

Edited December 1, 2009 by Blademaster!

[Original Alear]

I don't think he even knew he was nominated for it when it was awarded to him.

If he thought about it, he probably knew that he was. Almost every president who was alive when the nobel foundation began awarding the peace prize got nominated (exception = Coolidge). I bet McKinley would have been nom'd if he had lasted past 1901. This is probably because every president looks fairly important during their tenure in office - even Harding, whose efforts to ensure lasting peace after WWII were ineffectual and didn't go very far, still got nominated.

http://nobelprize.or...e/database.html

Also a question. How on earth do you expect him to fix the country's problems in one year? How do you expect him to fix them in two years? I'll have you know, that if I could finish writing my Fire Emblem sequel in only three more weeks(instead of the estimated three months), I would... but that would be damn near impossible. Did people actually get duped into thinking that the economy would jump back up the second Obama sat down in the oval office? The truth is, Obama's promises are based on an EIGHT YEAR run as president, because it's going to take at least that long for him to fix anything. You want change? Then keep him in office for the next eight years and hope the change is good :)

Even though I felt like the general's letter was pretty poorly written (WWII was about not wanting to be shoved around? lol) and I think Obama's detractors often go too far, I think that "put him in office for another 4 years because the first 4 can't possibly be indicative of how great things will be in the next 4" is pretty hopelessly optimistic.

For my part, even if I thought Obama was Jesus I wouldn't think he could do things alone. It's not just about making all the right decisions, it's about being able to choose people who can make and suggest the right decisions. (Actually, a good government probably requires several layers of people who can choose good people). Within my own field, economics, when I look at government attempts to regulate the market in the past couple of decades, I see fairly basic attempts to make things "better" that actually make things worse. The frequent perception that the government's attempts at regulation display a lack of understanding about what they are regulating lead to my hope that they will "fix" it being rather slim.

You guys are still somewhat ignoring the fact that when he DOES try to do ANYTHING to change, he is met with massive outbursts. If I were him, I would probably just try to shove it through, the Right Wing be damned, but he seems to want to try to appease them, which isn't inherently wrong.

Basically, you hate him because he's not doing anything, and a lot of people hate him because he's even considering doing something. Do you see how this is a difficult position?

I guess my first response would be that peacebuilding has a lot to do with diplomacy, and getting people to agree with you. In the past, the nobel peace prize has at least been awarded to presidents because they seemed to have brought dissenting parties to a point of agreeing to work towards peace and compromise successfully. Admittedly, people don't like Carter for a number of valid reasons, but the peace he built between Egypt and Israel still lasts today, Egypt being Israel's most powerful military enemy at that time. If Obama has a great plan, but can't persuade people to agree with it, what exactly does the plan count for?

This guy has a point in what he is saying. It even made me tear a bit at parts. This country means alot to me. Its worth dieing for.

Even though I disagree completely with the general about why this country is great (from what I got of what he said) and think his understanding of this country is fairly simple, I do think it is good of him to speak out for what he believes.

Second: Obama has repeated that he does intend to "get out" of Iraq. However, there are still pieces to pick up from the wreckage Bush left.

I agree that Bush left a lot of wreckage. However, during his campaign he was going for withdrawing most of the combat troops in Iraq by 2008. Now he has gone ahead and gone with the US-Iraq SOFA first negotiated between Bush's administration and the Iraqi cabinet in 2008, which sets the timetable for the end of 2010 IIRC. In other words, he put himself on the same schedule Bush was on for getting out of Iraq.

Worse yet, and this is probably what's really digging at Estes, Obama groveled before the King of Saudi Arabia, and didn't even receive a nod in return. That isn't showing respect and human decency to a world leader, it's kowtowing to the monarch in charge of one of the most evil countries to exist during my lifetime. Bush also visited Saudi Arabia a few times, unfortunately, but he never would have bowed to its King in a hundred years.

That's true, Bush only french-kissed the Saudi king. Look, it's fine if you're going to dig on Obama for gaffing up relations with the leaders of other countries, but don't act like Bush hasn't pulled the same embarrassing ****

I guess u are ok with it because it expresses rugged male american dominance or something.

The Obama policy is certainly a better one for American soldiers there, since they're no longer being given so many impossible orders, but I'd say things are a lot more chaotic and unsafe today for the average Iraqi than they were in 2006. Iran, Syria and Saudi Arabia are sending arms and trained men to terrorist factions just as much now as they were when Bush was in charge, the only difference is that American soldiers are no longer standing in the middle of everything.

Blah blah blah. Soft ideas from soft brains who make their assumptions about the world without paying any attention. What are you basing the idea that "things are a lot more chaotic...for the average Iraqi than they were in 2006" on? Absolutely nothing, just your own inherent bias that Bush ran things better than Obama did (I'm basing this assumption on the fact that you've cited no numbers).

http://www.iraqbodycount.org/database/

The documented civilian deaths in Iraq were highest in 2006 and 2007. The deaths from suicide attacks and bombings (attacks from those trained terrorists you referred to) were higher in 2006 than they were now. The deaths per day from gunfire and executions were higher in 2006 than they were now. In other words, despite your concerns about the lack of American bodies "standing in the middle", the casualties HAVE dropped.

A fairly well-informed Bush supporter could argue that the current, relatively nonviolent atmosphere in Iraq was due to Bush's strategies, and that in a few years Obama's strategies will lead to a more dangerous Iraq again. I'm not saying that would be right or wrong, I'm just saying you could argue that and not look like a complete idiot. Although the idea that ALL good presidential policies lead to benefits (or losses) only during the succeeding president's term is fallacious, it is certainly a possibility in some instances, and this line of reasoning can be used to justify Bush's actions in Iraq. In fact, this sort of argument is used by the supporters of every prior administration when things go better in any instance during the succeeding administration; it is also used by the supporters of every subsequent administration when things go badly, attributing any problems to the former administration. We have seen both these tendencies exhibited in this topic without much attention to particular evidence, which is characteristic of a trivial, illogical defense mechanism which is more useful for self-justification than reaching an effective understanding of politics. But you are SO woefully uninformed that you have made this argument in the present tense, implying that Iraqis right now are in more danger than they were during the Bush administration, which is patently untrue. You have attempted to use a defense mechanism which can be blown out of the water with one petty URL. You can't even stay toe-to-toe with the party line of bush supporters with any brains, who at least know to attribute an existing positive condition to long-term changes effected by bush rather than a completely nonexistent negative condition to short-term changes effected by Obama

I just want to end this by saying that there is still terrible violence in Iraq and I would not admit otherwise. But in order to put things in perspective, the deadliest attacks this year claimed IIRC about 150, while the Yazidi Community attacks in 2007 killed over 500 people (wiki has nearly 800 dead and 1500 wounded). In terms of continued violence in Iraq, things ARE better right now. They are certainly not great, and the fallout of the violence - such as the five million orphaned children cited by Iraq's "Anti-Corruption Board" - won't disappear simply, even if the war-related death toll on civilians drops to 0 for the rest of the decade. But it would do a lot to help the survivors move things forward.

EDIT-BTW. As far as the kowtow'ing stuff goes. I really don't care about the Japanese emperor, but I would have been happier if Obama had socked Abdullah in the face! That would pretty much secure my vote for him in 2012 no matter what he did otherwise.

Edited December 2, 2009 by SeverIan

[quanta]

You guys are still somewhat ignoring the fact that when he DOES try to do ANYTHING to change, he is met with massive outbursts. If I were him, I would probably just try to shove it through, the Right Wing be damned, but he seems to want to try to appease them, which isn't inherently wrong.

Basically, you hate him because he's not doing anything, and a lot of people hate him because he's even considering doing something. Do you see how this is a difficult position?

He isn't trying to appease them out of some sort of decency or something. He has to meet the center (moreso than congress does) because he wants to be re-elected. The sad part is some people bought the campaign bullshit about an end to partisan behavior (hint: this won't ever end as long as people disagree about things) and somehow thought he could simultaneously fulfill all his liberal campaign promises while somehow hedging towards the middle of the aisle (in terms of American politics).

Start acting American? Is Obama not American enough because he's not blinded by pride? Not American enough because he shows respect and human decency to other world leaders? Leading by example is a perfectly valid alternative to leading by force.

You're not wrong mind you (Obama's American because being American is a matter of citizenship; there isn't any heterogeneous set of ideals that every American agrees with or any set of behaviors all Americans follow), but did George Bush junior go around vomiting on European Presidents, Chancellors, and Prime Ministers or something?

And force is a necessary ingredient in international diplomacy. The Obama administration understands that well enough (which is why despite campaign promises a mere 50,000 or so troops last time I checked will be left in Iraq after "withdrawing").

Anyways though, whether or not Obama's presidency turns out to be terrible or great, the U.S. will be largely fine. The sky isn't falling, and a few minor gaffes in etiquette aren't really a big deal. Seriously.

[Defeatist Elitist]

You guys are still somewhat ignoring the fact that when he DOES try to do ANYTHING to change, he is met with massive outbursts. If I were him, I would probably just try to shove it through, the Right Wing be damned, but he seems to want to try to appease them, which isn't inherently wrong.

Basically, you hate him because he's not doing anything, and a lot of people hate him because he's even considering doing something. Do you see how this is a difficult position?

He isn't trying to appease them out of some sort of decency or something. He has to meet the center (moreso than congress does) because he wants to be re-elected. The sad part is some people bought the campaign bullshit about an end to partisan behavior (hint: this won't ever end as long as people disagree about things) and somehow thought he could simultaneously fulfill all his liberal campaign promises while somehow hedging towards the middle of the aisle (in terms of American politics).

I know bro, I guess what I am trying to say is that being a politician in America, he CAN'T do most of the things he promised, because a large portion of Congress and the people will be against him, which could hurt him. If it was me, I would probably say to hell with my chances of re-election, and try to force shit through, but even that might be tough given the number of Conservative Democrats. So yeah, I was more pointing out the reason why nothing happened.

Edited December 2, 2009 by ZXValaRevan

[Hero]

This post is all a response to Meteor's most recent post.

I said nothing of the man himself, only his ideas. Thanks for making it personal, though.

You shouldn't be afraid of words like "retarded" when you're the one to bring them up. I didn't say anything about you yourself, just about how your post made you seem. Exactly what you did about Estes' letter.

From here on out I'm going to copy your style of italicizing the text that I'm quoting, since it takes up less room and it's all from the same post anyway. Hopefully you won't mind.

That makes the emperor the jackass, not Obama.

It makes Obama appear ignorant or foolish for not treating the Emperor as an equal, from what I understand the Emperor only had three choices when confronted with Obama's deep bow--either bow obsequiously himself (essentially saying he considers himself Obama's inferior), refuse the bow (this would be the most rude) or give a lesser bow (acknowledging Obama as an inferior).

Really I couldn't care less for how Obama acts toward Japan, Japan today is relatively inoffensive and even if they got back into the superiority complex they once had it wouldn't affect much outside their borders, at least in the foreseeable future. It's his behavior toward the Saudis that really bothers me.

What would you have Obama do? Ignore him? Renounce his actions then do nothing? Start up another war? There isn't really a good course of action; the chosen one makes us look like a suck up or a friend, but that's better than enemies.

What I put in bold, pretty much. In the long term, make a stronger effort in getting oil from other sources or developing serious alternative energy sources (on a much larger scale than anything right now).

And please, elaborate. I would love to hear what you think will come of this.

The Saudis feel like they have America on a leash. They get bolder, fellow Islamists think will think the same way. The Saudis and other hardline Islamists will take America less seriously than before (Bush did quite a bit of damage in this regard himself).

No, we're supposed to bomb them into loving us!

They're never going to love us, that's the mistake the Bush administration made over and over again from 2002 and the Obama administration has continued to make in 2009.

Securing isn't "winning". Mr. Estes wants to win or leave. No compromise. My quarrel is with his desire for an absolute position.

What is winning, then? I think making the country secure and stable under a relatively pro-Western government is as good a definition of US victory in Afghanistan as any. It's the definition Obama seems to be using, too.

So he never had a problem with Bush's policies, but Obama is the one crossing the line? That makes no sense.

He sees Obama's foreign policies and handling of the military as more destructive than Bush's. At the current height of the administration's ineptitude I strongly agreed when I read this: "The Republicans under Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld (all of whom remain multi-multi-millionaires) have brought America to the edge of the cliff, and Obama will now push us over (and McCain/Palin would not have prevented it)." I'm not sure I agree with this statement any more, since Obama's been more moderate and pragmatic in foreign policy since Thanksgiving than at any other time since the spring when he was being so cautious, especially considering his speech today, but it's a good portrayal of the mood a couple weeks ago.

[BK-201]

Ethanol as an alternative fuel is not the way to go.

Obama has supported ethanol as a major alternative fuel.

I won't go into much detail here but simply the bad outweighs the good here.

No, we're supposed to bomb them into loving us!

Not when some are blowing themselves up to kill us.

[Hero]

No. Just no. I don't even want to really touch that. Please do more research on the subject and tell me if you still have the same opinion afterwords. Because in addition to how moronic such a notion is, America has done greater things militarily since WWII. The Berlin Airlift says hi.

I'll bet I'm about as well-informed on the subject as you, unless you're in the army or make your career out of this subject in a think tank or something.

The Berlin airlift was great, but it wasn't the kind of thing I meant when I talked about things America's done militarily, though it is something America's military has done. I hope you get the distinction, for some reason I can't think of any better way to phrase it.

What I said was that the initial idea, the launching of the War on Terror, is best thing America's done militarily since 1945. I hate terrorism in all its forms more than almost anything else. Going beyond the direct results of terrorist attacks themselves, the fear of, the risk of and even the name of terrorism has ruined too many things in the last fifty or so years.

I also said that the War on Terror has been bungled from the very beginning. It had a lot of good potential that was never reached, and at this point has just made things worse.

As for the economy, I don't even know what to make of it anymore. I've seen so many different articles saying that the economy is getting better or that it is getting worse and I don't even know what to make of it anymore. All I know is that since we live in a capitalist society, this kinda crap is supposed to happen and it will fix itself eventually.

It's impossible for me to say, I won't claim to be an economist, but even the most cloyingly optimistic predictions are saying that we're going to see employment continue to fall in the US and industry continue to decline even after the financial markets start moving at full speed again. This isn't Obama's fault so much as that of the Republican Congress, though Obama may be remembered as a disciple of Herbert Hoover if things don't turn around sooner than anyone expects.

At the end of the day, it's not really going to be any president destroying America, but the American people themselves. It's really sad in a way.

Only indirectly, the people they elected will always bear the ultimate responsibility.

(WWII was about not wanting to be shoved around? lol)

What would the alternative have been after Pearl Harbor? Cede all of the American possessions in the Pacific to Japan without a fight like the Sudetenland? Keep in mind also that Germany declared war on the USA after war was declared on Japan, not the other way around.

You might also want to read up on what the Germans were planning to do with North America after victory in Europe and Asia even before the US entered the war, it's worth knowing even if it isn't directly related to the topic at hand.

By the way, I'd love to debate about Carter with you sometime.

Blah blah blah. Soft ideas from soft brains who make their assumptions about the world without paying any attention.

You're the one with soft brains if you write me off as a Bush supporter, and more than half of what you wrote to me was based on that assumption.

What are you basing the idea that "things are a lot more chaotic...for the average Iraqi than they were in 2006" on? Absolutely nothing, just your own inherent bias that Bush ran things better than Obama did (I'm basing this assumption on the fact that you've cited no numbers).

http://www.iraqbodycount.org/database/

You're right, things are technically safer now than they were a couple years ago, that was bad word choice on my part. Things are more chaotic, though, because Syria is now wholeheartedly supporting terrorist attacks in Iraq (which the US refuses to even publically acknowledge, much less react to) and militias that once were able to control neighborhoods are taking charge of cities in the absence of government or foreign power. We should think about stability as well as how much blood is being shed right now. We need to ask how much blood is going to be shed in the future, how many people's lives ruined?

By the way, the drop in casualties occurred during 2008 well before Obama's election, according to the Iraq Body Count website.

Anyways though, whether or not Obama's presidency turns out to be terrible or great, the U.S. will be largely fine. The sky isn't falling, and a few minor gaffes in etiquette aren't really a big deal. Seriously.

It all contributes toward a big picture. Hopefully who Obama is and isn't bowing to isn't all we're talking about here.

I know bro, I guess what I am trying to say is that being a politician in America, he CAN'T do most of the things he promised, because a large portion of Congress and the people will be against him, which could hurt him.

You're right. So then, why did he make those promises and say "Yes We Can" when people brought up the concerns you mention?

Well... if he's not performing satisfactory by the next election, pray that democracy works in your favor, and another president steps forward :)

Hopefully the next one won't be someone even worse. :)

[Hero]

Ethanol as an alternative fuel is not the way to go.

Obama has supported ethanol as a major alternative fuel.

I won't go into much detail here but simply the bad outweighs the good here.

I already know about ethanol, it's not going anywhere. The Obama administration and the Bush administration before it have talked a lot about finding alternative energy sources, but I almost think that neither has been serious about it.

[Blademaster!]

Ethanol as an alternative fuel is not the way to go.

Obama has supported ethanol as a major alternative fuel.

I won't go into much detail here but simply the bad outweighs the good here.

I already know about ethanol, it's not going anywhere. The Obama administration and the Bush administration before it have talked a lot about finding alternative energy sources, but I almost think that neither has been serious about it.

The Obama administration is pretty serious about it. Obama is from Illinois, and Corn is their second most valuable export, I want to say. They are going to go through with it. And yeah, the bad does outweigh the good. I did a research paper on this (though that was a while ago) so I'm somewhat well informed on the subject :o

No. Just no. I don't even want to really touch that. Please do more research on the subject and tell me if you still have the same opinion afterwords. Because in addition to how moronic such a notion is, America has done greater things militarily since WWII. The Berlin Airlift says hi.

I'll bet I'm about as well-informed on the subject as you, unless you're in the army or make your career out of this subject in a think tank or something.

The Berlin airlift was great, but it wasn't the kind of thing I meant when I talked about things America's done militarily, though it is something America's military has done. I hope you get the distinction, for some reason I can't think of any better way to phrase it.

What I said was that the initial idea, the launching of the War on Terror, is best thing America's done militarily since 1945. I hate terrorism in all its forms more than almost anything else. Going beyond the direct results of terrorist attacks themselves, the fear of, the risk of and even the name of terrorism has ruined too many things in the last fifty or so years.

I also said that the War on Terror has been bungled from the very beginning. It had a lot of good potential that was never reached, and at this point has just made things worse.

When you put it like that, it makes me think it's similar to the war on drugs. But I see what you mean.

[Hero]

The Obama administration is pretty serious about it. Obama is from Illinois, and Corn is their second most valuable export, I want to say. They are going to go through with it. And yeah, the bad does outweigh the good. I did a research paper on this (though that was a while ago) so I'm somewhat well informed on the subject :o

I suppose what I meant to say is that it's not going anywhere as a serious alternative to fossil fuels. It's already gone quite some distance in terms of getting government money to people involved in the inedible corn growing business, and probably will go further in that regard.

When you put it like that, it makes me think it's similar to the war on drugs. But I see what you mean.

You got it, though I don't think the war on drugs was ever a good idea.