President Obama News Thread

[redfoot the fence]

abortion, stem cells, cuba, reaching out to islam, bailing on iraq, torture, gays in the military, increased emphasis on diplomacy, taxing the rich....are no brainers.

hope he goes for banning auto-gunz and stopping the death penalty very soon.

fuk the right. you had your bite at the apple and now its our turn! brahahaha

[venturalaw]

Originally Posted by Boon Mee

Narcissism Without Bounds:

Charles Krauthammer recently commented on Obama's response to Ortega's diatribe against the US:

The most telling moment, however, was when Daniel Ortega, the president of Nicaragua, delivered a 53-minute excoriating attack on the United States. And Obama's response was "I'm grateful that President Ortega did not blame me for the things that occurred when I was three months old."

Does the narcissism of this man know no bounds? This is not about him. It is about his country. This is something that occurred under John Kennedy — the Bay of Pigs is what he is referring to. And what he is saying is that it's OK that he attacked John Kennedy, as long as it wasn't me.

Doesn't it occur to him that he ought to defend his country even if stuff happened before him? It doesn't all start with him.

BO is a shameless empty suit. And a dangerous one to boot...

You are correct - it isn't about him. But you are missing the bigger picture. He hates America. That is why it never occured to him to defend the nation for which he was elected leader. It's a tradgedy, pure and simple, that a William Aires, Reverand Wright podd has acheived a position enabling him to lay waste to a most wonderful country. His evil is pervasive. He is comparable to AIDS.

[redfoot the fence]

phooey....merca is plenty strong enough for it's leaders to smile and listen to any/all other world leaders. i rather like the notion of smiling at an "enemy" while holding ones cards close. any fool can say "bring it on" a la bush.

[venturalaw]

Originally Posted by redfoot the fence

phooey....merca is plenty strong enough for it's leaders to smile and listen to any/all other world leaders. i rather like the notion of smiling at an "enemy" while holding ones cards close. any fool can say "bring it on" a la bush.

Holding one's cards close? He just caused to be released, to the world at large, a list of interrogation techniques utilized by US intelligence and, at the same time, refused to provide the information that was garnered from said techniques that resulted in saved lives.

[redfoot the fence]

He released rather dated torture methodology.

Good for him.

[venturalaw]

Originally Posted by redfoot the fence

He released rather dated torture methodology.

Good for him.

It's not suppose to be about him. Something he doesn't grasp either.
Was it good for the country? Hell no!

[Milkman]

Originally Posted by venturalaw

Holding one's cards close? He just caused to be released, to the world at large, a list of interrogation techniques utilized by US intelligence and, at the same time, refused to provide the information that was garnered from said techniques that resulted in saved lives.

The gist of this (I think), is that some of the techniques used were already proven to be innefective. Techniques that have a successful history should be used IMO in certain circumstances.

The other tactics often result in misinformation and false confessions that just muck things up.

Those the implemented these techniques did not even study their histories.

[redfoot the fence]

Obama smoked mccain.

learn to live with it.

it seems a healthy portion of the mercan electorate doesnt agree with you.

some would argue that copping to past wrongs and freely discussing the stupidity of torture is one of the strengths of a democracy.

[venturalaw]

Originally Posted by redfoot the fence

Obama smoked mccain.

learn to live with it.

it seems a healthy portion of the mercan electorate doesnt agree with you.

some would argue that copping to past wrongs and freely discussing the stupidity of torture is one of the strengths of a democracy.

Yep some would. They are the ones that voted for Gore, and would not have implimented measure post 9-11 that kept the country safe eight years hence. They are also the ones that would dismantle the same measures thereby exposing the US for another attack. We'll see what happens.

[Milkman]

Originally Posted by venturalaw

Yep some would. They are the ones that voted for Gore, and would not have implimented measure post 9-11 that kept the country safe eight years hence. They are also the ones that would dismantle the same measures thereby exposing the US for another attack. We'll see what happens.

Everything is hypothetical for the most part.

Preventing terrorist attacks are about intelligence and the implementation of intelligence policies.

Were they effective? Perhaps.

There hasn't been another attack. Why exactly?

There will be another attack in the future, IMO. When? We don't know.

Less than 3,000 dead out of a population of almost 300 million is a very small percentage. Horrific yes.

Mostly symblic destruction, embarrassment, and economic damage.

[venturalaw]

Originally Posted by Milkman

Everything is hypothetical for the most part.

Preventing terrorist attacks are about intelligence and the implementation of intelligence policies.

Were they effective? Perhaps.

There hasn't been another attack. Why exactly?

There will be another attack in the future, IMO. When? We don't know.

Less than 3,000 dead out of a population of almost 300 million is a very small percentage. Horrific yes.

Mostly symblic destruction, embarrassment, and economic damage.

Were they effective? Perhaps.
There hasn't been another attack. Why exactly?
If they were not effective, there would have been another attack, no? Or perhaps the terrorists decided to take off attacking for 8 years. Not likely.

Less than 3,000 dead out of a population of almost 300 million is a very small percentage. Horrific yes.
All at the same time. Yes, quite horrific.

Mostly symbolic destruction? Really? So how many deaths would overcome the symbolic nature of the attack?

[Bugs]

Originally Posted by Milkman

The gist of this (I think), is that some of the techniques used were already proven to be innefective. Techniques that have a successful history should be used IMO in certain circumstances.

The other tactics often result in misinformation and false confessions that just muck things up.

Those the implemented these techniques did not even study their histories.

I don't know about being ineffective - seems one of the things Cheney is clamoring on about right now is that the WH only released half of the story - the part about the interrogation methods, and not the part about the result (ie how effective they were).

But I don't think the real question is how effective or not a certain type of interrogation is - but if it can be/ or should be considered torture. As most seem to agree (at least publicly) that the US should not be utilizing methods that are considered torture.

The effectiveness has as much to do with who is doing and how they do it, as it does with what they are actually doing. The same technique used by folks who don't know how, or simply don't do it in the correct way can be ineffective. While at the same time used by one who is well trained and executes the technique correctly will have the desired results.

Much is said about how incorrect stuff comes out under torture and the like most of the time IMHO is mainly because the folks conducting the torture either don't know what they are doing, or are not doing in the correct way. Regardless of the method used it is not that hard to determine if the information you obtain over time is correct or not - a little follow-up and corroberating goes a long way.

As for those implementing not knowing the history - this seems to be big news right now but IMHO is a bit misleading. The folks in the higher up positions in all likelihood did not know the history. But the folks in the lower ranks - the ones actually implementing/ utilizing the techniques more than likely not only knew the history they knew which ways it has been used effectively and which ways it has been shown to be ineffective in the past.

[Milkman]

Originally Posted by venturalaw

Mostly symbolic destruction? Really? So how many deaths would overcome the symbolic nature of the attack?

That is a subjective number.

It depends on how you look at it, and in particular, history.

WWII - 60 million dead. Mostly civilian, for example.

Other conflicts have very large numbers as well.

Diseases, car accidents, murders, DWIs.

It's subjective. But the 9/11 number of casualties were very small. If a family member, certainly it's a horrific tragedy. Any casualty is.

In the context, the statistics are worth noting.

[Jet Gorgon]

^ So that's like saying, "He only lost an eye, one arm, a leg, and a kidney. He's fine!"

[venturalaw]

Originally Posted by Milkman

That is a subjective number.

It depends on how you look at it, and in particular, history.

WWII - 60 million dead. Mostly civilian, for example.

Other conflicts have very large numbers as well.

Diseases, car accidents, murders, DWIs.

It's subjective. But the 9/11 number of casualties were very small. If a family member, certainly it's a horrific tragedy. Any casualty is.

In the context, the statistics are worth noting.

Are you missing the fact that the 3,000 deaths occured in a matter of minutes? Do you not see that your comparisons are invalid?

[Milkman]

Originally Posted by venturalaw

Are you missing the fact that the 3,000 deaths occured in a matter of minutes? Do you not see that your comparisons are invalid?

Now, you're injecting the time, which was probably over about 2 hours.

My focus is on numbers.

Now you are focusing on the time.

No need to continue this discusson.

[redfoot the fence]

breath, ventura...

[Jet Gorgon]

Ya, you guys, knock it off. You do have to admit, Milkie, that it was the only full-frontal assault on US soil since Pearl Harbour. That's what freaked people out. And it was an assault on a civilian target, not a military installation. That generates fear.

OK...I lived in Nagasaki for a year. Want me to tell you about that?

[Lambik]

[quote=Jet Gorgon;1032780]..............
...I lived in Nagasaki for a year................

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Just out of curiosity Jet, was this before or after China please ?

[venturalaw]

Originally Posted by Jet Gorgon

Ya, you guys, knock it off. You do have to admit, Milkie, that it was the only full-frontal assault on US soil since Pearl Harbour. That's what freaked people out. And it was an assault on a civilian target, not a military installation. That generates fear.

OK...I lived in Nagasaki for a year. Want me to tell you about that?

Some experience, eh Jet?