- This topic has 15 replies, 8 voices, and was last updated 8 years, 2 months ago by Health.
-
AuthorPosts
-
September 9, 2016 3:24 am at 3:24 am #618351JosephParticipant
Who is the better president for his country – Obama for America or Putin for Russia?
Consider:
Putin outmaneuvered Obama on Ukraine after Obama supported the coup d’etat against the elected government of Ukraine.
Putin outmaneuvered Obama on Syria.
Obama backed down from his “red lines” on Syria.
Putin’s military actions in Syria achieved their objectives and did not end in the quagmire Obama predicted.
Obama stood by as Syrian civilians were massacred.
Obama’s baby is the Islamic State as result of his unilateral withdrawal from Iraq and inaction in Syria when he refused to assist the rebels.
September 9, 2016 11:42 am at 11:42 am #1185538SparklyMembernone
September 9, 2016 2:14 pm at 2:14 pm #1185539benignumanParticipantIt depends on what you mean by “better.” If you mean advancing his country’s interests in foreign affairs, even if those interests are evil, then Putin.
If you mean better in the moral sense for his country, then Obama.
For example:
Obama stood by as Syrian civilians were massacred = Bad
Putin aided the Syrian government in massacring its civilians = Worse
Obama negotiating nuclear treaty with Iran and lifting sanctions = Bad
Putin giving them nuclear technology and missiles = Worse
September 9, 2016 3:10 pm at 3:10 pm #1185540HealthParticipantJoe -“Who is the better president for his country – Obama for America or Putin for Russia”
Obama is an extreme leftist – so if you’re also like that you’ll love him!
But a lot citizens are more in the middle or on the right.
It’s a shame that we don’t have a guy like Putin running our country!
September 9, 2016 3:14 pm at 3:14 pm #1185541JosephParticipantbenignuman: From the moral examples you gave between Obama=Bad and Putin=Worse, you are saying while Obama is morally better than Putin but that Obama is still morally “bad”.
But to take your Syrian example, you criticize Putin for supporting the Syrian government, yet it was Putin’s Syrian intervention that gave the government the ability to begin defeating the Islamic State, which you surely agree is far worse than the government. Furthermore, even the rebels (Free Syrian Army, Nusra Front, etc.) have engaged in war crime atrocities. So it is difficult to assert that Russia’s actions in Syria made matters worse.
It was Obama’s actions in Iraq, and lack thereof in Syria, that made way for the birth of the Islamic State in its current form in Iraq and Syria.
Regarding Iran, Russian know-how and technology assistance began before Putin came to power in Russia. Additionally, France bears as much blame in that regard.
You also didn’t acknowledge Obama’s support of the coup in Ukraine that overthrew the government that preceded the civil war there.
September 9, 2016 6:11 pm at 6:11 pm #1185542benignumanParticipantFirst of all, I don’t think you realize how evil Assad has been. Although in the long run, ISIS in Syria might be worse, Assad has tortured and killed even more Syrian civilians. The US should have intervened on behalf of the Free Syrian army right away and although the FSA has committed atrocities also, they are not in the same league as Assad and ISIS. Furthermore, Russia should (and falsely claimed they would) stop Assad from bombing (including chemically) civilians, but Russia has not stopped them but helped them.
I think that Obama was morally weak on Syria, he failed to do the right thing and the Syrian population is suffering because of it. Russia went ahead and deliberately did the wrong thing. Obama was shev v’al taaseh, Russia was kum v’aseh.
On Iran, that Russia has been bad for a while isn’t an excuse for them to continue to be bad. Putin is actively selling Iran missiles and nuclear tech. Russia is now allied (in the practical sense) with Iran and Assad (Assad is backed by Iran).
On Ukraine, I didn’t know that Obama was involved in the coup. I have to look into it more. Other than taking Crimea by force, what Putin done to outdo Obama.
Most importantly, from a moral perspective, Putin has made himself a dictator, he assassinates journalists and other who criticize him, and he has crackeddown on the fredom his peoplel
September 9, 2016 7:53 pm at 7:53 pm #1185543JosephParticipantOther than taking Crimea by force, what Putin done to outdo Obama.
Crimea was taken bloodlessly. A vast majority of the population support being part of Russia. Crimea has been Russian for many centuries until Soviet dictator Nikita Khrushchev gave it as a “gift” to the Ukraine in an internal (and at the time effectively meaningless) Soviet transfer.
As far as Puting outmaneuvering Obama on Ukraine, Obama supported the coup de’tat against the elected government because they were pro-Russian unlike the previous government which was pro-Western and pro-NATO. Obama hoped with the overthrow of the government it would bring Ukraine closer to the West. Putin, in response to Obama backing the coup, backed Ukrainian rebels opposed to the unelected government who assumed power after the coup. As a result of Russian backing, the rebels have created a de facto split in Ukraine between the pro-Western regions, which are under government control, and the pro-Russian regions, which are under rebel control in a stalemated frozen conflict that has effectively prevented Ukraine from becoming closer to NATO and the EU, something Russia would abhor.
September 11, 2016 3:08 pm at 3:08 pm #1185544bentzionParticipantPutin OBVIOUSLY!!!
What has Obama done for the country in a positive way? NOTHING!!!
What will Hillary do for us positive? NOTHING!!!
September 11, 2016 8:12 pm at 8:12 pm #1185545hujuParticipantPutin is a better president for Russia because Russia is an undemocratic dictatorship, and he is very undemocratic and dictatorial. So, that said, is this the stupidest issue ever addressed on YWN?
To bention: How many journalists and opposition politicians should Putin kill before you consider him worse than Obama, who (with lots of help) killed Bin Laden, John Boehner and the US generals (except for Boehner and the generals).
September 30, 2016 5:15 pm at 5:15 pm #1185546👑RebYidd23ParticipantObama could not fix the country after the Reflublicans ruined it!
October 2, 2016 3:10 am at 3:10 am #1185547thedarkknightMemberPutin is for sure better for HIS country than B.H.Obama is for our country.
October 2, 2016 5:35 am at 5:35 am #1185548HealthParticipantTo Huju : How many journalists and opposition politicians should the Clintons’ kill before you consider them worse than Obama, who (with lots of help) killed Bin Laden?
October 5, 2016 9:28 pm at 9:28 pm #1185549hujuParticipantTo Health: I already consider the Clintons worse than Obama, so they do not have to kill anybody. And as far as I know, they have not done so. The harder question would be, how many journalists and opposition politicians would the Clintons have to kill before I would vote for Trump over Hillary? I won’t think about that question until I have to, i.e., until Bill or Hill kills someone. And in about a month, the question will become moot.
October 6, 2016 3:01 am at 3:01 am #1185550HealthParticipanthuju -“And as far as I know, they have not done so.”
You’re in disagreement with a lot of people! Take for example V. Foster.
Don’t live in a fantasy world!
October 6, 2016 6:33 pm at 6:33 pm #1185551hujuParticipantTo Health: Oh, yeah, I forgot the Clintons killed Vince Foster (who was not a journalist or opposition politician, so he does not count). But the investigators never found any evidence that the Clintons killed Vince Foster. So I guess that makes them smart.
October 6, 2016 9:01 pm at 9:01 pm #1185552HealthParticipantHuju -“But the investigators never found any evidence that the Clintons killed Vince Foster. So I guess that makes them smart.”
She did not kill him directly, but she caused his death!
Why do DemonCrats distort the truth and protect their Avodah Zora – the Clintons?!?
Do you really want such a person as our president?!?
This article makes e/o understand why embarrassing s/o is equalvalent to killing them!
From the Washington Times: (Not the National Enquirer)
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.