Quote:
Originally Posted by chrispedersen
...Hearing someone say they are going to close down gitmo - with a lack of other details - does not inspire me to believe that the problems (for there are several) will be considered, let alone fixed. It rather much appears as if you are pandering to public opinion rather than actually considering the issues. As I said in the ealier post, its a decision that should take the best minds. The AG, SoS, JCS, SoD - etc.
|
This is so similar to the whole "we need to negotiate with Iran" problem. Politicians in general, but Republicans especially, seem to have taken a liking to protraying an -extreme- level of cautiousness. We are so critical of our Presidents, that now they either try to hide what they do, or in cases that they can't hide it, they are openly as slow and deliberate as possible, so that at least when they fail, they can say they "took proper measures" or at least "really thought about it a lot", and at least try to show that they didn't fail in some way due to impulsiveness.
However, this is now being turned into an illusory critical flaw in someone who is willing to stand up and announce that he will take action. So far, when confronted, Obama has stated that while he has made his
goals clear, that it in no way implies that he is planning to behave irresponsibly. Until something outrageous happens (doubt it, but it could) along these lines, then I would suggest that every time Obama says that he
will do something about something, that you read it as "
I will figure out, with my advisers, how to deal with this issue, and then act". It is somehow vaguely ridiculous to think that someone as obviously intelligent as he is, could rise to such a high office, and then run around like an idiot, doing things with no thought of the repercussions. Besides, no one will be able to pull that off as well as GW did, and I think Obama knows that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by chrispedersen
You announce that you want to convene at camp david to brain storm what to do about Gitmo - I'd applaud.
Announce that you want to draft legislation on what to do about non-signatory resistance movements - I'd applaud.
Just announce that you are going to close gitmo.. without announcing how you are going to solve these other issues - and I am way less than impressed.
|
See, this is silly. Someone saying they want to "talk about what to do", is not only acting like total wimp, but they are directly implying that if it's somehow deemed appropriate, that they'll let things continue rather than stopping them. All he has basically said is that one way or another, those things WILL stop. Obviously it is yet to be determined the most appropriate and effective means to do so, but stating that a certain result is the goal, in no way implies a lack of process.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Agema
Few would pretend the USA is whiter-than-white and hasn't done morally dubious things in its self-interest, nor that it doesn't have bad people in it. But by and large the USA as a nation has tried to stand up for or represented values the West finds attractive: lawfulness, democracy, human rights and many more. Particularly in comparison to other major powers like China or the old USSR, whose regimes have been repellent.
And yes, many people want to go to the USA for money. But I think you're underestimating how many people admire the USA for its respect for laws, individual rights and egalitarian society, even those in nations that view the USA as an enemy. Furthermore, people who believe in Enlightenment values want a nation that was founded on them and still espouses them to act on them.
|
We were supposed to be the good guys. Maybe not saintly, as a nation, but "good". So if humanity were graded on a curve, we took pride in, and the rest of the world seemed to praise us for, being on the "right" side of that curve somewhere.
Perhaps we are where we are because of our economy, but it cannot be discounted that our diplomatic position has long been seen as very strong, and that our economy has only been bolstered by our ability to negotiate favorable agreements around the world. Thus it is incredibly ironic, and a bit telling, that during 8 years of diplomatic strength our economy did better than most Republicans want to give anyone credit for, and then during 8 years of diplomatic disappointment, our economy slides into a terrible slump (a trillion dollars for a ridiculous war might have something to do with it, too.....). Of course, we can always blame Clinton, he got a couple blowjobs in office and didn't want to tell anyone, so he must have seriously sabotaged our economy beyond what any man as brilliant as GW Bush could have possibly fixed.....