The ability to effectively wage and win wars, or;
The ability to effectively avoid wars by resolving conflicts through the use of diplomacy, economic sanctions or incentives, and the use and sharing of information with those countries you might otherwaise be inclined to wage war against?
2007-05-16 02:41:31 · 16 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Of course, number two must come first. No one really likes war because people die, it costs lots of money, and wastes lots of resources. However, there are situations where war is unavoidable (ex. Europe in the late 1930's) and we need to realize that occasionally we do need a leader to effectively wage and win wars.
2007-05-16 03:00:14 · answer #1 · answered by msi_cord 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
War should always be the very last resort. Even Teddy Roosevelt who is often thought of as a hawk believed we should use diplomacy (walk softly) but leave the door open to war (carry a big stick) if necessary.
2007-05-16 09:52:51 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
Actually I like one who can do the latter, but when that fails, and occasionally it will fail, can decisively do the former. People seem to forget that although it takes two to wage a war, it only takes one to start one. It's like the kid who gets told to turn the other cheek all the time. He's going to get the crap beat out of him on a regular basis. Although it only takes one to start a war, it takes two willing, reasonable sides to have a discussion.
2007-05-16 09:49:14 · answer #3 · answered by wolfatrest2000 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Of course number 2, but they also have to be able to realize when number 2 isn't working or they end up no better than the UN. There is genocide occurring in Sudan to the tune of millions of people per year and we (the entire world) are still screwing around with sanctions. There comes a time when military action is a must, and a leader has to be able to realize when that time has arrived.
2007-05-16 09:47:12 · answer #4 · answered by blakereik 4 · 2⤊ 2⤋
Ron Paul, he follows the constitution.
He's pretty much all the things I value in a president. The goal shouldn't be to win wars, but to avoid them.
2007-05-16 09:47:42 · answer #5 · answered by christinanicole85 2 · 3⤊ 0⤋
I want a president who will defend the Constitution, who will not outsource American national security to weak countries whose interests are antithetical to our own, who will not be a patsy to defunct international "peacekeeping" organizations like the UN who exploit America's economic/military might to do their bidding, who will not be afraid to resort to military action when it is clear that diplomacy has failed, who will not sell our military secrets to rogue nations in the interest of achieving some fake and shallow alliance.
2007-05-16 09:47:28 · answer #6 · answered by kncvb21345 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋
The presidents primary responsibility is to enforce the law,rules, and regulations of the federal government. The present one feels he has no need for any of the above and totally disregards each of them when it is his whim to do so! Well he may soon discover the prerogative of the people is to do away with him as well!
2007-05-16 09:59:59 · answer #7 · answered by Jake 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Ability to make right decisions based on the available information. Also ability to acknowledge wrong decisions and take steps to address them.
2007-05-16 09:47:56 · answer #8 · answered by Mr. Beef Stroganoff 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋
It is always better to resolve conflicts through diplomacy or other peaceful methods. No one dies that way.
2007-05-16 09:45:38 · answer #9 · answered by katydid 7 · 3⤊ 0⤋
Diplomacy is always the better decision, war, when all else fails. (WWII for example) .
"You have to choose your war. There are good wars and bad wars"
-My father
2007-05-16 09:48:56 · answer #10 · answered by Global warming ain't cool 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋