|
FortunaStoryteller
⊙ω⊙
|
|

04-21-2009, 07:51 PM
Recently America's President Obama decided to not only stop the former interrogation methods of suspected terrorists, but to make the information of the argumentably cruel interrogation methods public knowledge.
Was this a wise decision, why or why not?
|
|
|
|
|
Sally Sinema
(◎_◎;)
|
|

04-21-2009, 08:15 PM
If he doesn't act honestly in the eyes of the world, when these truths come out it will reflect even worse on all Americans. Truth is by torturing people to gain information the Bush administration violated the Geneva convention, went against the U.N. and damaged the U.S.'s foreign relations reputation to the point that it will take more than a decade and one presidential term to repair. By doing this, Obama is setting the tone for how he will deal openly and honestly in all humility with the rest of the world. We did wrong, when you do wrong you admit to it, learn from it and never repeat it.
|
|
|
|
|
Guivre
(^._.^)ノ
|
|

04-21-2009, 09:05 PM
It's really hard to answer this question without sounding horribly jaded. :/
Or to mention the fact that republicans have threatened not to work with democrats if that information was released.
The last thing we need is another democrat who can't get anything done, so our next president is like George W. x 1000.
|
|
|
|
|
Sally Sinema
(◎_◎;)
|
|

04-21-2009, 09:37 PM
I don't know, Guivre, with the Republican party's recent antics I think they just might implode. There might be hope yet.
|
|
|
|
|
Nambs
(-.-)zzZ
|
|

04-22-2009, 06:32 AM
I think Obama is taking a great stance. Even if this method of openess and honesty causes prolems, he'll gain the trust and thanks of the people, and that's what really matters because future presidents will be held to that standard. He's setting up the beginnings for a better tomorrow.
I hope.
|
|
|
|
|
Doomfishy
(っ◕‿◕)&...
|
|

04-22-2009, 02:23 PM
To naively ignore the human rights infringements that have taken place over recent years would be to sweep them further under the rug. IMO, this move was an absolute necessity.
|
|
|
|
|
Izumi
イズミ
Penpal
|
|

04-22-2009, 03:19 PM
I think he did the right thing. It would of been even worse if he was aware of it but kept it secret. You know eventually it would leak and it would drag his name down in the mud.
I think it's good he's not going to prosecute anyone who was given orders to perform the torture, and if anyone should be to blame it should be Bush.
|
|
|
|
|
white_rose_phoenix
(-.-)zzZ
|
|

06-04-2009, 10:20 PM
Sorry, but this policy is rife with fail. And it is symptomatic of Obama's overall foreign policy fail. Smarter, more experienced people than him have already rejected his simplistic, overly naive ideas, and little by little, he's coming to the realization himself: he had no idea wtf he was talking about.
Does anyone remember back during the election when he was swearing that the very first things that he would do when in office would be to close Gitmo and immediately withdraw all troops from Iraq and Afghanistan? And then he got a dose of reality. He realized that the Gitmo detainees were dangerous people who, if released, were highly likely to return to activities that would endanger the country. Furthermore, no other country wants to accept a bunch of terrorists. And the states don't want them in our prisons either. Muslim terrorists in our prisons have a nasty habit of converting and recruiting within the prison population.
And as for Iraq and Afghanistan: who but the most drug addled Code Pink, MoveOn.org forum rat would think that we could just cut and run? Obama came into office thinking he'd just have to say a few words, shake some hands, and give a little wink and the rest of the world would lose their senses and fall all over him like the American electorate did. And what concessions did he gain, exactly, for his Blame America tour in Europe? Absolutely nothing.
His policies on interrogation will fail just like his other foreign policy initiatives. He and most common folk just don't understand the game of international politics, and they certainly don't understand war. Muslim terrorists are serious. They want genocide. They want bloodshed. They want to take over the world in the name of their religion. And people like Obama laugh it off. Well, they laughed off North Korea's nuke program too, didn't they? And look what happened. This is not a drill, America. And when they blow up the building where your friends and/or family were, you'll be screaming that government didn't do enough to try and get the information out of known enemies of the state.
|
|
|
|
|
Jayn Newell
*^_^*
|
|

06-04-2009, 10:41 PM
I'm not sure previous presidents understood international politics, either. The US has been the big bully on the playground for ages now, and Obama is the first President to actually do anything towards changing that. He is working to make the US accountable to not only the American public, but the rest of the world. The policies of GWB wasn't making America more safe, IMHO. They were pissing the rest of the world off even more.
Is Obama naive? Yes, and I never expected him to be able to keep all his election promises. Getting into office was bound to whack him over the head with a good dose of reality. But he is still a very welcome change from what we've seen happening in the Oval Office for the last 8 years.
|
|
|
|
|
white_rose_phoenix
(-.-)zzZ
|
|

06-04-2009, 10:53 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jayn Newell
I'm not sure previous presidents understood international politics, either. The US has been the big bully on the playground for ages now, and Obama is the first President to actually do anything towards changing that. He is working to make the US accountable to not only the American public, but the rest of the world. The policies of GWB wasn't making America more safe, IMHO. They were pissing the rest of the world off even more.
Is Obama naive? Yes, and I never expected him to be able to keep all his election promises. Getting into office was bound to whack him over the head with a good dose of reality. But he is still a very welcome change from what we've seen happening in the Oval Office for the last 8 years.
|
If you are a person charged with the security and freedom of a country that has invested its power in you, then you are required to do what is best for that country. If you are an actor on the international stage, the most preferable and safety-minded stance to take is to negotiate from a position of power. You can call it "being a bully" if you like, but it's better to appear unassailable than to look like a sitting duck. And a sitting duck is exactly the change in image that Obama is bringing about. You can't do that. You keep your aces in the hole, you cover all your bases, you make an example, and you never, never, never apologize. Diplomacy is a game of poker, not an episode of Oprah.
You may think that Bush didn't make us safer, but I note that he kept us safe for 7 years. With the information wrested from the terrorists with those icky interrogation techniques, other plots were foiled. Bush prevented another catastrophic "man-made disaster", as DHS now calls them, and you just can't deny that. In the end, it doesn't matter if you make others mad just as long as they can't do anything about it. And the very nature of the country (its prosperity, its freedom, its success) makes people hate the US anyway. It doesn't matter if they hate you, but they darn well better respect you.
|
|
|
|
|
Jayn Newell
*^_^*
|
|

06-04-2009, 11:01 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by white_rose_phoenix
In the end, it doesn't matter if you make others mad just as long as they can't do anything about it. And the very nature of the country (its prosperity, its freedom, its success) makes people hate the US anyway. It doesn't matter if they hate you, but they darn well better respect you.
|
I'm curious what your definition of 'respect' is. It's hard to say if other countries respect or fear the US, to be honest. And the problem with making other countries angry is that in today's global community, it's not necessarily other countries you need to worry about--remember that 9/11 was carried out by a small group of people. Even if the majority of people in a country have no problem with you, the nutcases can still wreck havoc if they want to badly enough.
The self-serving nature of America is both its greatest gift and its greatest curse. It is what has made the country what it is, but it is also what is alienating other nations. Why should they respect you when you don't respect them?
|
|
|
|
|
white_rose_phoenix
(-.-)zzZ
|
|

06-04-2009, 11:40 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jayn Newell
I'm curious what your definition of 'respect' is. It's hard to say if other countries respect or fear the US, to be honest. And the problem with making other countries angry is that in today's global community, it's not necessarily other countries you need to worry about--remember that 9/11 was carried out by a small group of people. Even if the majority of people in a country have no problem with you, the nutcases can still wreck havoc if they want to badly enough.
The self-serving nature of America is both its greatest gift and its greatest curse. It is what has made the country what it is, but it is also what is alienating other nations. Why should they respect you when you don't respect them?
|
I mean respect like a storm chaser respects the tornado, or like the electrician respects the current. You respect it because it will thrash you if you don't. You're not a poker player, are you? You don't keep your shirt if you are constantly showing people your hand, or if you do nothing but fold.
There are ways that you could make Muslim terrorist jihadis leave us alone, true. Here's how: the US surrenders to the Worldwide Caliphate. You are given an option: convert to Islam or pay tribute and be a second class citizen...or die. If you happen to be gay, you die. If you are a Christian, atheist, Jew (especially Jew), Hindu or anything else, you die. If you draw a picture of Mohammed, you die. If you like pork, alcohol, recreational drugs, chess, bikinis, ice cream, or a plethora of other things, well, you're SOL. If you're a woman and you don't want to cover your body from head to toe, you just might be raped and then stoned for tempting your rapist into having sex with you. Oh, and don't bother going outside unless your brother or father are escorting you. And you can't drive. They may even force you to get a clitorectomy, and if you're very, very lucky, you'll get an aspirin while they do it.
Muslim extremists can't be sated by diplomacy...unless it's cowboy diplomacy. So long as we're free, they'll come after us. So long as we hold them back from committing genocide against the Jewish race, we'll be on the top of their list. We make them angry by existing. Can you think of some nice middle ground?
|
|
|
|
|
Bartuc
Sky Pirate
|
|

06-05-2009, 02:25 AM
Fuck no that was not a wise decision! In the past our government and military forces have conducted very, very harsh and inhumane methods to torture people for information. Imagine the reprocussion that foreign countries will do in retalation to the information and acts that were performed against the Geneva conventions. Seeing as in a state of 'war' we are one of the only countries who abide by the geneva conventions which in turn will come back and bite us in the ass over this and any other things he may release.
|
|
|
|
|
finalitycarrot
⊙ω⊙
|
|

06-09-2009, 01:54 AM
I think Obama's just basically doing the moral opposite of Ahdmadinejad, who denied the Armenian genocide. Or was it the Holocaust? Anyways, a genocide.
Basically, I think Obama's just trying to say "Look, bad stuff did happen, and I'm not going to say that we're all good people, so I'm not going to hide it from you, or make the same mistakes again. But a mistake is only a mistake if it is not corrected."
I think it's a really good way to disclose interrogation methods; it leaves the government feeling like part of the people rather than a secret society of elites that controls the people. It also coincides with my own philosophy: "If you want to do anything bad, then you have to do it without fear that it will be found out."
|
|
|
|
|
white_rose_phoenix
(-.-)zzZ
|
|

06-09-2009, 02:55 AM
Total transparency is against the interests of the nation. Do you think we should offer them the launch codes for our nukes next? I would ask if we should tell them exactly where the nukes are but, oh geez, Obama already did that! Oh, I know: we can expose the identities and covers of all of our spies. All in the name of diplomacy and transparency, right?
Obama is not doing anything like the moral opposite of Ahmanutjob. In fact, his complicity in weakening our national security might just be equated to indirect genocide, depending on the effects and consequences of his actions. No, the opposite of genocide would be preventing genocide...but wait: the only one who would come close to that definition would be the most hated President Bush. Ahmanutjob denies the Holocaust, but Obama does similar things when he goes on these apology tours.
|
|
|
|
|
finalitycarrot
⊙ω⊙
|
|

06-09-2009, 04:26 AM
I don't think you have sufficient privileges to decide the interests of this nation. First of all, last I recall, America is still abiding by the NNPT introduced by the PRC in 1968, so they would violate international law by launching or even arming nuclear weapons for use.
Just because interrogation methods are made known does not mean everything should be made known. Are you saying that just because a person may eat cake once, then he or she must always eat cake? There are always exceptions to general rules. In this case, we can determine that the interrogation was an exception to the law of secrecy.
The Chinese have done bad stuff for god knows how long. Remember Tian An Men? If you keep things hidden and it gets leaked, it only makes the severity of the matter even worse. All secrets will eventually be exposed. If they were truly secret, no one would suspect their existence.
There is no need to be overly-suspicious. By treating everyone else as a potential enemy, it creates distrust and discrimination, leading to strife and warfare, which leads to distrust, creating a vicious cycle. I did not even refer to President Bush, nor did I call him the worst president.
When has Obama even denied anything, or is your reasoning simply base conjecture? I'd like to see some proof of his denials.
Honestly, you might have that thought that in your mind, I am one of those masses that support Obama, and they are stupid and support him for no reason other than the fact that he is unique, young, and better looking than McCain. But no, I actually support McCain. Obama's reorganization of the economy was simply a bit too risky, considering how Rudd screwed over Australia under similar circumstances.
However, just because one person is not completely good does not mean that they are completely evil. People are not either light or dark. Obama is simply apologizing for his predecessor's mistakes; he does not deny that things have occurred. In fact, he is doing the exact opposite, as I have stated before. He does not deny the wrongdoings of the past. He wishes people will forgive, but not forget.
Everybody makes mistakes sometimes. Even the U.S. Government. But by being overly suspicious and fearful of others due to these mistakes, the consequences of said errors are greater than the mistakes themselves.
There is no reason to be paranoid over war. The more suspicious of others you feel, the more uneasy they feel around you, causing hostilities. In a sense, all harm you experience is due to your perception of others; you inflict any fear you may have upon yourself.
There are no negative consequences for apologizing over things that infuriate human rights activists. There is nothing wrong with making amends.
If you'd like to refute my statements, I'd like to see the logic behind what you're saying. WHY would President Bush have prevented genocide? You think other countries wouldn't get mad if you were waterboarding their people, but try to kill you when you apologize for it? Did you honestly think that they didn't know? Would your mom get mad if someone was waterboarding you?
Last edited by finalitycarrot; 06-09-2009 at 04:28 AM..
|
|
|
|
| Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests) |
|
|
|