Deleted
Joined: Apr 30, 2024 12:37:48 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 19, 2015 21:46:42 GMT -5
i honestly don't give two whits about the sexual conduct of a president, so long as it does not prevent him or her from performing their job. Something we 100% agree on.
|
|
happyhoix
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Oct 7, 2011 7:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 20,892
|
Post by happyhoix on Feb 20, 2015 8:21:14 GMT -5
I'm curious to see how the emergence of ISIS/ISIL will impact Obama's rating by historians. Will future historians think Obama should have reacted faster and with massive military ground assaults when ISIS first emerged, or will they applaud him holding back while international outrage grew, until there was enough anger against ISIS that an Arabian led, truly international coalition came together against them? I don't think ISIS/ISIL will be a significant enough factor in the long run to get much mention(purely gut feeling.) I hope you're right, I hope ISIS/ISIL becomes, historically, nothing more than a bug splat on the windshield of time, in which case how Obama handled it won't be historically significant. However, if ISIS/ISIL should produce the next Hitler figure and starts the next world war, or should they at some point get their hands on a dirty bomb and explode it over Israel, effectively rendering that country uninhabitable for the next 500 years, history might decide Obama could have avoided that if he had acted aggressively the moment ISIS first raised it's wretched head. Kind of like how we wonder what might have happened if Woodrow Wilson had enthusiastically joined Britian against Germany at the start of WWI, instead of trying to remain neutral. If he'd been quicker to join the fight, would WWI have been shorter, less bloody, and would it have left Germany less devestated, which in turn might have kept the Nazi party from gaining power?
|
|
deziloooooo
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 16:22:04 GMT -5
Posts: 10,723
|
Post by deziloooooo on Feb 20, 2015 12:39:37 GMT -5
I don't think ISIS/ISIL will be a significant enough factor in the long run to get much mention(purely gut feeling.) I hope you're right, I hope ISIS/ISIL becomes, historically, nothing more than a bug splat on the windshield of time, in which case how Obama handled it won't be historically significant. However, if ISIS/ISIL should produce the next Hitler figure and starts the next world war, or should they at some point get their hands on a dirty bomb and explode it over Israel, effectively rendering that country uninhabitable for the next 500 years, history might decide Obama could have avoided that if he had acted aggressively the moment ISIS first raised it's wretched head. Kind of like how we wonder what might have happened if Woodrow Wilson had enthusiastically joined Britian against Germany at the start of WWI, instead of trying to remain neutral. If he'd been quicker to join the fight, would WWI have been shorter, less bloody, and would it have left Germany less devestated, which in turn might have kept the Nazi party from gaining power? Actually ...regarding Germany " less devestated"....there was very little physical damage in Germany...unlike WW2 when it's cities were devastated.. The damage done to Germany after the war were the humongouse reparations that the allies..less the USA..put on her in payments for the damage done to them..both physical and the cost of ..to the point of collapsing the Weimer Republic government ..enter Adolph and the Natzi party...Also our own Depression , which before it happening , was a prime source of investment funds into Germany..that all dried up thus shutting German businesses, factories ...
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,129
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Feb 20, 2015 15:04:56 GMT -5
that wasn't my point. my point is that it would disprove YOURS (that Obama was an outlier). to be clear, i think Obama will end up with positive approval, and an above average rating by Historians (edit: like Reagan, who you ALSO regard as among the worst presidents, if memory serves). and i am completely confident that Bush will remain in the bottom quartile for a very very long time. I certainly hope he does, because the only thing that would elevate him from that would be a run of astonishingly bad presidents.
and candidly, this has happened. three of the bottom quartile were president between 1920 and 1932 (all in a row).
What is going on now with ISIS gives us a glimmer of what Bush hath wrought in the Middle East I'm afraid, and it's not good. The invasion of Iraq was entirely disgressionary (sic) - it was unprovoked, and it was an invasion of choice.
this was part of Bush's wonderous, glorious, PNAC sponsored, 1984 like, pre-emptive war campaign. it is not only totally immoral, it is absolutely illegal under international law.
We can now see that the invasion did just what many of us predicted it would- it destabilized Iraq, and it destabilized the region. If Netanyahu could see past his big head he would know that it also greatly empowered Iran by removing it's natural counterbalance.
It was just a monumentally stupid strategic decision, and I think probably one borne of jaw dropping hubris.
agreed. and that, my friends, is why Bush is way worse than Obama. Obama is the janitor. most of this is Bush's mess.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,129
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Feb 20, 2015 15:06:25 GMT -5
I hope you're right, I hope ISIS/ISIL becomes, historically, nothing more than a bug splat on the windshield of time, in which case how Obama handled it won't be historically significant. However, if ISIS/ISIL should produce the next Hitler figure and starts the next world war, or should they at some point get their hands on a dirty bomb and explode it over Israel, effectively rendering that country uninhabitable for the next 500 years, history might decide Obama could have avoided that if he had acted aggressively the moment ISIS first raised it's wretched head. Kind of like how we wonder what might have happened if Woodrow Wilson had enthusiastically joined Britian against Germany at the start of WWI, instead of trying to remain neutral. If he'd been quicker to join the fight, would WWI have been shorter, less bloody, and would it have left Germany less devestated, which in turn might have kept the Nazi party from gaining power? Actually ...regarding Germany " less devestated"....there was very little physical damage in Germany...unlike WW2 when it's cities were devastated.. The damage done to Germany after the war were the humongouse reparations that the allies..less the USA..put on her in payments for the damage done to them..both physical and the cost of ..to the point of collapsing the Weimer Republic government ..enter Adolph and the Natzi party...Also our own Depression , which before it happening , was a prime source of investment funds into Germany..that all dried up thus shutting German businesses, factories ... it's Nazi, dez. not a big deal, but just thought i would point it out. not to annoy you.
|
|
happyhoix
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Oct 7, 2011 7:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 20,892
|
Post by happyhoix on Feb 20, 2015 15:24:20 GMT -5
Correct. I should have been more clear. I didn't mean that Gemany was physcially flattened, I meant they had to sign such a horrible peace treaty that it essentially prevented them from economically recovering from the war.
My point was if we had joined in the WWI effort sooner, could we have ended that conflict sooner, would the allies have been less intent on punishing Germany for starting such a horrible, long, bloody war and maybe settled for some more reasonable peace treaty that allowed Germany to thrive economically, Hitler might have been a loud, annoying, insignificant bug splat on the windshield of life.
What will we think about ISIS 50 years from now? Bug splat or ban of our century? How we think about it long term will impact how the historians rate Obama. Could be, as djp suggested, his domestic successes far outshine anything he does internationally, as long as he doesn't so something that really screws the pooch between now and the next election.
|
|
deziloooooo
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 16:22:04 GMT -5
Posts: 10,723
|
Post by deziloooooo on Feb 20, 2015 18:37:30 GMT -5
Actually ...regarding Germany " less devestated"....there was very little physical damage in Germany...unlike WW2 when it's cities were devastated.. The damage done to Germany after the war were the humongouse reparations that the allies..less the USA..put on her in payments for the damage done to them..both physical and the cost of ..to the point of collapsing the Weimer Republic government ..enter Adolph and the Natzi party...Also our own Depression , which before it happening , was a prime source of investment funds into Germany..that all dried up thus shutting German businesses, factories ... it's Nazi, dez. not a big deal, but just thought i would point it out. not to annoy you. No problem dj..I always have a problem with that one and can't remember the correct spelling always want to put a T in there...and was to lazy to do a look up...I miss not having spell check...
|
|