Barrack Obama. So his term as American president is slowly winding down.

RobertKK wrote: »

It is a valid question.

And is mine not? I'm starting to suspect you have absolutely nothing to back your opinion up.

RobertKK wrote: »

Obama's treasury secretary Timothy Geithner vetoed a deal that would have helped Ireland get a better deal when our banks were failing, thus costing Irish taxpayers far more.
Obama must laugh at the people here in Ireland who wave and cheer him.

That administration threw Ireland to the wolves

Don't let the door hit you on the way out Barry

Obama and Trump are a stark contrast in the expectation game.

For Obama, the bar was set so high during his campaign that it would have been impossible to fulfil the expectations the country (and the world) had of him. People saw him as the saviour, who would deliver the US from economic peril, solve race relations and end wars. No president could ever have done even a fraction of that.

For Trump, (other than among some of his supporters who believe he will bring back the US of the post-war era) the bar could hardly be lower. If he makes it through his term without starting a nuclear conflict that will be seen as a success, a lucky escape.

It will be interesting to see how history treats them both.

eeguy wrote: »

FYP;)

He could be assassinated through nuclear conflict :pac:

Skylinehead wrote: »

That doesn't really answer anything at all, it's just a vague quote. Alright, I'll outline what I'm looking for: I need clear evidence of a switch from capture to kill, I need numbers of drone strikes increasing, and I need numbers of airstrikes not decreasing. If you can't provide any of that then I'll just assume you're putting your own opinion out there as fact (without knowing if it's true or not) and we can end this rigmarole

Here in an Economist article they ask if Obama in 2013 has slightly switched policy from kill to some capture as the US tried to capture two terrorists in Somalia and Libya.
That after much criticism of his drone program.
http://www.economist.com/news/united-states/21587860-two-raids-special-forces-hint-tactical-shift-barack-obama-kill-or-capture


Here in the Guardian

Since the Obama administration largely shut down the CIA's rendition programme, choosing instead to dispose of its enemies in drone attacks, those individuals who are being nominated for killing have been discussed at a weekly counter-terrorism meeting at the White House situation room that has become known as Terror Tuesday. Barack Obama, in the chair and wishing to be seen as a restraining influence, agrees the final schedule of names. Once details of these meetings began to emerge it was not long before the media began talking of "kill lists". More double-speak was required, it seemed, and before long the term disposition matrix was born.

In truth, the matrix is more than a mere euphemism for a kill list, or even a capture-or-kill list. It is a sophisticated grid, mounted upon a database that is said to have been more than two years in the development, containing biographies of individuals believed to pose a threat to US interests, and their known or suspected locations, as well as a range of options for their disposal.

It is a grid, however, that both blurs and expands the boundaries that human rights law and the law of war place upon acts of abduction or targeted killing. There have been claims that people's names have been entered into it with little or no evidence. And it appears that it will be with us for many years to come.

https://www.google.ie/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/world/2013/jul/14/obama-secret-kill-list-disposition-matrix?client=safari

A triumph of style over substance.

RobertKK wrote: »

I don't agree.
The airplanes are for war situations as used in Syria, though I brlieve Obama and the west chose the wrong side.
As in Libya and Iraq.
We did not have military airplanes hovering above a place 24/7 before the drones, observing and waiting to fire its payload.
It would have been boots on the ground, special forces and the likes.

Jets have been used out of war situations before, in Libya, Sudan, you name it. Although they also use satellites and Tomahawks.

You keep mentioning the hovering thing, what's the problem there? Surely better than jumping in and out without taking stock of the situation.

daithi7 wrote: »

Well he sure must have some style so, cos he had more substance about him than any other president since FDR, and that's quite something!!

No he hasn't.

The Kennedy/LBJ era, Reagan and Clinton easily were as substantive (I would argue more so).

Both Reagan and Clinton left office considerably with higher approval ratings than Obama did, they didn't get those for no reason.

Skylinehead wrote: »

Jets have been used out of war situations before, in Libya, Sudan, you name it. Although they also use satellites and Tomahawks.

You keep mentioning the hovering thing, what's the problem there? Surely better than jumping in and out without taking stock of the situation.

It has been reported that people who live where the drone wars are happening, are afraid to go outside because, they can hear the buzzing noise of drones overhead, and they don't know know who the target is and if and when they go outside if they will find themselves in the wrong place, at the wrong time and end up blown to bits.

Obama's administration also do double tap strikes so when a target is hit, they also started hitting the people who were first responses to the strike.
It led to people who had family members killed, afraid to go to the scene of an attack, and it is important to keep in mind all the time how males who could be considered of a military age are seen as guilty without proof.
It is no wonder we had the rise of ISIS when poor foreign policy seemed to be to support any group who rose up against a dictator, and where drones are creating a hate that is very very dangerous.
The person who tried to cause an explosion in Times Square in NY said he did because of drones and the US not caring about killing innocent people.
Two wrongs don't make a right, but a wrong can lead to very bad consequences and the drone wars are radicalising people, as no one with sense would accept it is right to live under a drone overhead 24 hours a day waiting to hit, and you scared for your life not knowing if you will be caught up in it.

Terrorism as a problem got far worse under Obama and his very poor policies, which really just assisted them, as they have done in Libya and Syria.

Obama is clearly one of the good guys. I can't agree with some of his policies but he's obviously a decent, honest and intelligent person who has tried to do good in difficult circumstances.

I feel he was very poorly treated by much of America and that they will not appreciate him until he is gone. They may be wishing for him soon...

nacho libre wrote: »

As for Obama; he probably knew he could not deliver a lot of what he promised, but when has that ever stopped a politician with ambition and ego. I suppose he will blame the Republican dominated congress for stifling him. Which doesn't tell the fully story. I don't know how it's accurate to describe someone as decent when they regularly approved double tap strikes.
Also how you can describe someone as decent/" one of the good guys", who send his daughter to an elite private school, while all the time preaching about helping the common person to lift themselves up, when he effectively denied access to education to poor inner city kids in DC.

Oh ffs!!

Those free nachos are obviously bad for your thinking process, as witnessed by your distorted sense of reality. I'd suggest going easy on the cheese sauce, you're obviously blocking those arteries to your grey matter, and that part of your anatomy obviously needs every last bit of oxygen it can get!!

Good domestic affairs legacy, terrible foreign affairs legacy.

He was given an easy ride by the media for fear of being accused of racism a lot of the time.