Quote:
Originally Posted by Typhoid
It's that the fact has no purpose in the conversation and just seemed like a complete attempt to "slander" him by saying he hasn't taken an opposing stance to Bush.
I'm not a giant Obama-fan, but I'm just getting sick of the constant (not on these boards, in general) needless pointing out of things to do with Obama, that took place during Bush's "reign".
|
Well, then I am happy to bear the brunt of your misdirected anger.
Certainly Obama is taking a different stance than the Bush Administration, although I am not quite sure if it is opposite. I do believe the fact that Obama has put these kinds of tactics in reserve (most likely for a situation that we have talked about previously) is important to this conversation.
Surprisingly, I actually like Obama, although I rarely agree with him on most policy issues. I still think it is important to be critical when evaluating the course he is taking our country, though. I don't think this interrogation / torture debate is quite as black and white as some make it out to be. Certainly it is an easy discussion to have in a time of peace (or at least the appearance of peace). But, when a country is under attack, and a war is being waged, the rules of the game change, they always have, and practically speaking, they always will. This does not make what is done right or wrong, but we must be able to address these practical challenges that will inevitably be faced, and not an ideal situation.
Edit: And if you don't wish to have a conversation concerning the future, and Obama's role, then let us have a conversation concerning the past, and Bush's role. The events of 9/11 were quite startling at the time. Now, in retrospect, they seem less-so, but let us look back. It was the largest attack on American soil in the history of our country in terms of lives lost, and it dealt a serious blow to our financial and economic markets and greater stability. The former administration, faced with an enemy they knew little about, had a necessity to gain intelligence on this enemy. It was apparent that the terrorists had infiltrated our country, and it was difficult to ascertain quite how far that infiltration went.
Another attack on American soil, on par with the attacks of 9/11, would not have only brought down the world's confidence in America's physical protection, but it would have also sent our domestic economy into a severe recession or depression. In turn, this would have sent the world economy into a severe downturn, leading to great instability. This was a very serious and real potential outcome.
It seems that a reasonable leader, given the duty to protect our citizens with the full might of our power, while also protecting our liberties, would indeed sacrifice the liberties (that we would bestow upon) of an enemy combatant to save thousands of American lives and perhaps the greater economic stability of the world. This seems rational and reasonable. Is it right? Perhaps, perhaps not. But if one looks throughout history the liberties of a few have always been compromised in order to sustain the liberties of many. Again, is that right? Perhaps, but it is what it is. And we've only touched the surface with this discussion, which I think is very complex, and not at all easy.
I have personally not passed judgement one way or another, as I do not believe all the evidence is readily available to us, and I also believe we must give history more time to bear out fact from fiction.