Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Debates Forum

Debates Forum

  1. 19 Jan '10 21:28
    http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/nilegardiner/100022714/10-reasons-why-george-w-bush-was-a-smarter-world-leader-than-barack-obama/
  2. Standard member Palynka
    Upward Spiral
    19 Jan '10 21:47
    "World Leader"
  3. 20 Jan '10 18:01
    Originally posted by zeeblebot
    http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/nilegardiner/100022714/10-reasons-why-george-w-bush-was-a-smarter-world-leader-than-barack-obama/
    I'll respond to some quotes from the article.

    "Barack Obama has apologised for America’s past actions in practically every speech he’s given on foreign soil, and has humiliatingly referred to America’s “arrogance”.

    So according to the imbecile who wrote this article, apologizing for mistakes done in the past = humiliation?

    "There was something very refreshing in George W. Bush’s Reaganesque interpretation of the world in terms of good and evil."

    whats refreshing about adopting a 19th century solution to international problems?

    "The spread of freedom and liberty was always a centerpiece of the Bush agenda"

    yes, it was so important that he didn't mind the number of people who were killed in the process. Not to mention the fact that spreading liberty all over the globe is something unrealistic, it cannot be achieved by one single country.

    "Barack Obama rarely mentions the word freedom, and the issue of human rights is far down his list of priorities"

    Surely this must be a joke, obama is not concerned about human rights like bush was?! who was the president responsible for guantanamo bay, and all the other attacks on people's civil liberties?

    "One of the biggest shifts in US foreign policy under the Obama administration has been its willingness to undermine national sovereignty, and its desire to give more power to supranational institutions such as the United Nations. Washington has already rejoined the embarrassing UN Human Rights Council (HRC)..."

    what exactly is "embarrassing" about the UN Human Rights Council?

    "President Bush recognized Great Britain as America’s closest friend and ally"

    well, it was more like "america's closest lackey", but anyway...

    "The Obama administration has also succeeded in damaging the partnership between Israel and the United States"

    and how is this bad?

    "The Obama White House’s appalling surrender to Moscow’s demands to scrap Third Site missile defence was a shameful act in the face of Russian intimidation"

    Ok, he does have a point here.

    "One of the gravest mistakes of Obama’s first year in office has been his reluctance to describe the conflict against al-Qaeda and its backers as a global war. He dropped the idea of a War on Terror within days of entering office, which was subsequently renamed as an “Overseas Contingency Operation”. President Bush was right to rally his country behind a large-scale long war, one which may last for several decades, against an enemy that seeks the destruction of the West."

    agreed.


    overall the article is too biased and in some cases even untruthful, but it does make one or two good points.
  4. 20 Jan '10 18:08
    Originally posted by generalissimo
    I'll respond to some quotes from the article.

    [b]"Barack Obama has apologised for America’s past actions in practically every speech he’s given on foreign soil, and has humiliatingly referred to America’s “arrogance”.


    So according to the imbecile who wrote this article, apologizing for mistakes done in the past = humiliation?

    "There w ...[text shortened]... in some cases even untruthful, but it does make one or two good points.
    whats wrong w/ guantanamo bay? Prisoner there have a average weight gain of 20 lbs! They are treated better than our own inmates in the states.
  5. 20 Jan '10 18:11
    10 reasons why faeces is tastier than hamburgers
  6. 20 Jan '10 18:19 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by utherpendragon
    whats wrong w/ guantanamo bay? Prisoner there have a average weight gain of 20 lbs! They are treated better than our own inmates in the states.
    whats wrong with guantanamo?

    do you think people should be held without charge? it is a violation of human rights.
  7. 20 Jan '10 18:35
    Originally posted by generalissimo
    whats wrong with guantanamo?

    do you think people should be held without charge? it is a violation of human rights.
    According to the military, most were picked up in Afghanistan"captured on the battlefield."
    The Pentagon says the detainees fought alongside the Taliban during the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan or they have direct links to Al Qaeda. Therefore they are enemy combatants.
    Once determined by the president to be an enemy combatant, persons may be held indefinitely and are subject to the jursidiction of military tribunals.
    "Under these rules, captured enemy combatants, whether soldiers or saboteurs, may be detained for the duration of hostilities. They need not be 'guilty' of anything; they are detained simply by virtue of their status as enemy combatants in war. This detention is not an act of punishment but one of security and military necessity. It serves the important purpose of preventing enemy combatants from continuing their attacks.
  8. 20 Jan '10 19:18 / 3 edits
    Originally posted by utherpendragon
    whats wrong w/ guantanamo bay? Prisoner there have a average weight gain of 20 lbs! They are treated better than our own inmates in the states.
    What is the problem? We see what the problem is today. "W" left them there for Obama and now they will be sent to US soil to be tried as US citizens, that is and was the problem. "W" left these boys to rot at Gitmo bay leaving the mess for a future administration. I fail to see why conservatives should complain seeing that since "W" has left this mess to be cleaned up by other people. They should have been sent to a military court and prosecuted and hanged if found guilty. Of course, "W" did not seem to have the resolve to do so,

    The same could be said about Iraq and Afghanistan. He left this mess for others to clean up. In fact, if Obama does not change course from the "W" way of throwing trillions more to these causes, baught and paid for by the Red Chinese, he will soon face a similar fate.
  9. 20 Jan '10 19:26
    Originally posted by whodey
    What is the problem? We see what the problem is today. "W" left them there for Obama and now they will be sent to US soil to be tried as US citizens, that is and was the problem. "W" left these boys to rot at Gitmo bay leaving the mess for a future administration. I fail to see why conservatives should complain seeing that since "W" has left this mess to ...[text shortened]... hese causes, baught and paid for by the Red Chinese, he will soon face a similar fate.
    I disagree. As I stated above the Prez was in his right to do this. The new admin is in the wrong. They are the ones wanting to bring them here and try them as civilians.Thats not W's fault.
  10. 20 Jan '10 19:30 / 3 edits
    Originally posted by utherpendragon
    I disagree. As I stated above the Prez was in his right to do this. The new admin is in the wrong. They are the ones wanting to bring them here and try them as civilians.Thats not W's fault.
    Why is it right to simply detain them rather than try them? If "W" had tried them, they would have stood before a military court but now they are coming to the US where judges let child molestors go with a mere slap on the wrist. I am not arguing with his right to do so, rather, I question the wisdom in this.
  11. 20 Jan '10 19:38
    Originally posted by whodey
    Why is it right to simply detain them rather than try them? If "W" had tried them, they would have stood before a military court but now they are coming to the US where judges let child molestors go with a mere slap on the wrist. I am not arguing with his right to do so, rather, I question the wisdom in this.
    As stated above:

    They need not be 'guilty' of anything; they are detained simply by virtue of their status as enemy combatants in war. This detention is not an act of punishment but one of security and military necessity. It serves the important purpose of preventing enemy combatants from continuing their attacks.
  12. 20 Jan '10 19:45 / 2 edits
    Originally posted by utherpendragon
    As stated above:

    They need not be 'guilty' of anything; they are detained simply by virtue of their status as enemy combatants in war. This detention is not an act of punishment but one of security and military necessity. It serves the important purpose of preventing enemy combatants from continuing their attacks.
    But this war will NEVER end. So basically any "detained combatants" should be held indefinately via tax payer expense? I disagree with this approach.
  13. 20 Jan '10 20:32
    Originally posted by utherpendragon
    As stated above:

    They need not be 'guilty' of anything; they are detained simply by virtue of their status as enemy combatants in war. This detention is not an act of punishment but one of security and military necessity. It serves the important purpose of preventing enemy combatants from continuing their attacks.
    Mightily convenient, don't you think?
  14. 20 Jan '10 21:48 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by utherpendragon
    According to the military, most were picked up in Afghanistan"captured on the battlefield."
    The Pentagon says the detainees fought alongside the Taliban during the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan or they have direct links to Al Qaeda. Therefore they are enemy combatants.
    Once determined by the president to be an enemy combatant, persons may be held i serves the important purpose of preventing enemy combatants from continuing their attacks.
    So if Iran decided to round up a few hundred Americans and declared them to be "enemy combatants" without any sort of trial, should the president just accept that Iran has the right to detain them indefinitely?
  15. 20 Jan '10 21:53
    Originally posted by Melanerpes
    So if Iran decided to round up a few hundred Americans and declared them to be "enemy combatants" without any sort of trial, should the president just accept that Iran has the right to detain them indefinitely?
    Do you know of any Americans who are attacking Iranian troops? Do you know of any Americans who are at war w/Iran?