2008 Presidential Election - Obama v McCain (3 Viewers)

[bigboyjames]

Relatively stable? What a laugh. Iraq was terribly unstable and its stability was owed entirely to a ruthless dictator. Our presence has upped stability to an enormous degree. Funny how these bleeding heart liberals forget how much ethnic cleansing went on in Afghanistan and Iraq, eh?

lol, you bill o'reilly?

 

[bigboyjames]

Shut up my friend. I think that it's appropriate that the campaign linger on foreign policy - that's really the President's job. Congress controls the domestics and McCain would be more effective in negotiating with it.
For all his nice sentiments, I cant imagine Obama having the force of character to push through universal healthcare or serious action to address climate change. He'd be weak and impotent and ineffective.

The republicans WILL NOT ADMIT GLOBAL WARMINGS IS MANS WORK. THEY THINK ITS GODS WRATH ON EARTH.

Mostly i'm persuaded that McCain is better for Australia's interests, in terms of aggressively defending allies and not slapping up old-fashioned protectionist walls around America

true.

Edit: of course you talk to these wackos, but you dont give them the propaganda victory of letting them talk to the leader of the free world. You cant entertain their hatred at that level

lol, free world? lol. Western fascism has increased ten folds over the last decade. please don't use "free world" and "America" in the same sentence.

 

[Trefoil]

America stopped being the leader of the 'free world' when they elected Bush.

And yet his approval rating in America is STILL double his approval rating world-wide... 20%.

 

[Nebuchanezzar]

Firstly, don't use an inclusive pronoun. 'We' did not do a thing. Only the selfless humanitarians of our heavily armed forces did anything.

Second, I think it's moronic to measure stability only by a body count. Democracy is worth ten thousand dead Iraqi civilians. Only when we have democracy and no dead civilians can we have total stability, and that, my friend, is what we're thankfully heading towards.

Hopefully it'll come at the end of the Bush presidency: A fitting reward for a job well done.

 

[Captain Hero]

These new kids are hilarious.

 

[Nebuchanezzar]

Eh this is uncomfortable even for me. I don't like to troll about such matters. I shall call it quits.

But on the subject of Obama vs. McCain on foreign affairs, I think it's obvious to all that Obama would be viewed internationally as a breath of fresh air, someone who would be willing to engage in diplomacy and talk rather than in snubbing the UN. His oratory skills could forge a more attractive path for the US in this post American world.

EDIT: Also more likable amongst those that don't like America, obviously. My guess is that Russia or Iran would be more willing to negotiate with someone who wasn't in the Vietnam war, who doesn't seem like a pro-war candidate in general than ol' McCain. McCain is moar of the same, whereas Obama is a new Lincoln. Hell, isn't he even saying he'll bring an end to partisan politics or something? An end to a centuries old civil war in America!

 

[Enteebee]

Ben just to begin working through this:

- Say a separatist government takes over Tasmania using military force.
- While the majority are somewhat comfortable with it, this government oppresses segments of the local population and commits regular brutal atrocities, such as randomly kidnapping women to serve the sons of the ruling elites, and
- They threaten an escalation of the atrocities (i.e. They would start systematically murdering the local population) if we attempt to intervene.

Do you think it's automatically a bad idea to attempt to free these people? I don't think it's as black and white as you would make out.

 

[Nebuchanezzar]

Your first point is a bit irrelevant. There was nothing more or less moral about Saddam's Iraq than white Australia.

 

[Enteebee]

Your first point is a bit irrelevant. There was nothing more or less moral about Saddam's Iraq than white Australia.

I think I disagree. But either way, I believe he was bringing Afghanistan into it?

 

[Captin gay]

Ben just to begin working through this:

- Say a separatist government takes over Tasmania using military force.
- While the majority are somewhat comfortable with it, this government oppresses segments of the local population and commits regular brutal atrocities, such as randomly kidnapping women to serve the sons of the ruling elites, and
- They threaten an escalation of the atrocities (i.e. They would start systematically murdering the local population) if we attempt to intervene.

Do you think it's automatically a bad idea to attempt to free these people? I don't think it's as black and white as you would make out.

DIstance between Tasmania and AUstralia != Distance between Iraq and the United States.

 

[Enteebee]

Well for starters, I'd rather focus on Afghanistan as I find it a much better case than the war in Iraq which I openly say was wrong. Now what sort of a principle are you trying to set up here?

- Should we only care about injustice that occurs close to home?
- Should we only act where we fear for our own safety?

 

[Captain Hero]

Your first point is a bit irrelevant. There was nothing more or less moral about Saddam's Iraq than white Australia.

Yeah we sure loved all that nerve gas we used in white Australia

 

[Nebuchanezzar]

Aboriginals were a lot friendlier than the Muslims so there was no need for such grotesque weaponry. Iraqis defended themselves, as best they could, from Saddam's tyranny. Aboriginals welcomed the strange pieces of floaty wood with albinos onboard and were subsequently slaughtered as a preemptive measure.

- Should we only care about injustice that occurs close to home?

I think that it would be best to act close to home as opposed to long, long ago and far, far away. For instance, America would be more inclined and expected to act if Canada was invaded, as they have a greater knowledge of the Canadians. The Americans clearly underestimated the level of commitment needed to liberate Iraq (assuming that was the intention), and clearly overestimated how much the Iraqi's actually wanted their help. So no, we shouldn't only care about local injustices but I think the level of care decreases as you get further away, as is to be expected, and actions should probably reflect this.

- Should we only act where we fear for our own safety?

Same as above really.

I'd also like to present a little scenario for consideration:

a) Intervene and end up killing one innocent to save another
b) Allow one innocent to perish without intervention

Which is worse? Extrapolate results to the Iraq war.

 

[Enteebee]

I think that it would be best to act close to home as opposed to long, long ago and far, far away. For instance, America would be more inclined and expected to act if Canada was invaded, as they have a greater knowledge of the Canadians. The Americans clearly underestimated the level of commitment needed to liberate Iraq (assuming that was the intention), and clearly overestimated how much the Iraqi's actually wanted their help. So no, we shouldn't only care about local injustices but I think the level of care decreases as you get further away, as is to be expected, and actions should probably reflect this.

I agree that it does, but I disagree that it should. Is human life worth less the further away from you it gets? Obviously not, even though we're just human and perhaps can't help but intuitively feel such a way (see Peter Singer's 'The Expanding Circle').

I would say that barring another nation being in place to act in the interest of justice, or a greater direct effect on your nation, the geographic/ethnographic whatever proximity shouldn't matter, that you do have some moral impetus to intervene.

a) Intervene and end up killing one innocent to save another
b) Allow one innocent to perish without intervention

Which is worse? Extrapolate results to the Iraq war.

It's kinda the same scenario as what I'm giving you... My argument is that, especially in Afghanistan, you could very well say that while more people may be dying due to the intervention, that to stand by and do nothing would be to commit a great injustice. Who knows, maybe what's happening in Afghanistan now would have been the eventual result of some coup and as many people would be dying in the name of justice?

 

[Iron]

We did it for YOU, people of Iraq.
coff 9/11 coff misguided revenge

 

[Nebuchanezzar]

I agree that it does, but I disagree that it should. Is human life worth less the further away from you it gets? Obviously not, even though we're just human and perhaps can't help but intuitively feel such a way (see Peter Singer's 'The Expanding Circle').

I was more saying that I regard all human life as equal, but think that as you go further and further away that the level of consideration needs to increase: something that was most certainly not taken into consideration in Iraq or Afghanistan. Clearly invading countries on the other side of the world and expecting civilians to react passively to dead family members for God knows what reason isn't a reasoned approach. Silly Bush.

It's kinda the same scenario as what I'm giving you... My argument is that, especially in Afghanistan, you could very well say that while more people may be dying due to the intervention, that to stand by and do nothing would be to commit a great injustice. Who knows, maybe what's happening in Afghanistan now would have been the eventual result of some coup and as many people would be dying in the name of justice?

Hence a lot of consideration is needed.

But it's all going to be a gamble, in the end. Is it responsible to gamble with a human life? I'd say never, probably. Better to let one die than risk ten deaths unless you're very, very certain of the consequences (hello East Timor)

 

[Enteebee]

But it's all going to be a gamble, in the end. Is it responsible to gamble with a human life? I'd say never, probably. Better to let one die than risk ten deaths unless you're very, very certain of the consequences (hello East Timor)

So what you're saying then is, if a militia took control of Tasmania and committed rapes/murders on 1% of the population, but threatened more suffering to another 5% if we intervened, we should not intervene? I can see that as a worthy argument, but I don't think it's black and white. I can see that perhaps it's better to bring such people to justice and to let the world know, let other tyrants know that they can't get away with things like this.

 

[Nebuchanezzar]

^That's reasonable. But does it ever work?

So what you're saying then is, if a militia took control of Tasmania and committed rapes/murders on 1% of the population, but threatened more suffering to another 5% if we intervened, we should not intervene? I can see that as a worthy argument, but I don't think it's black and white.

My argument? Yes that is my argument.

 

[Captain Hero]

What about Nader and Bob Barr?

 

[Enteebee]

^That's reasonable. But does it ever work?

Well, in a perfect scenario for such an argument... say with Afghanistan. Great injustice was done there, the people were suffering and they are suffering more as we try to correct such injustice. The hope would be that we could (though we probably won't given the present situation) set the nation up for a prosperous future whereby the people of Afghanistan never need to know such fear again.