19 Feb 09
4 edits
Who is morally superior when it comes to dealing with suspected terrorists?
Consider the following:
Obama has authorized at least 2 missile strikes to kill suspected al Q terrorists in and around Pakistan since he has taken office. A few dozen people were killed instantly by the bombing attacks.
Bush authorized the arrest and imprisonment of a few hundred suspected terrorists who were brought to Guantanomo prison and tortured, but not killed.
Obama kills people, Bush imprisons them.
Who is morally superior?
Let me re-phrase it for you.
Why did everyone criticize Bush for creating the prison in guantanamo, but NO ONE is criticizing Obama for ACTUALLY KILLING people?
In effect, what we are saying is that it's not okay to torture people, but killing them is fine!!??
19 Feb 09
Originally posted by uzlessI seem to remember Bush having authorized some raids and/or attacks into Pakistand himself.
Who is morally superior when it comes to dealing with suspected terrorists?
Consider the following:
Obama has authorized at least 2 missile strikes to kill suspected al Q terrorists in and around Pakistan since he has taken office. A few dozen people were killed instantly by the bombing attacks.
Bush authorized the arrest and imprisonment of a ...[text shortened]... tured, but not killed.
Obama kills people, Bush imprisons them.
Who is morally superior?
I don't think it's useful, in fact I think it's useless, to simply pick two things and then somehow think we can conclude morality of individuals based solely on those.
19 Feb 09
Originally posted by PsychoPawnLet me re-phrase it for you.
I seem to remember Bush having authorized some raids and/or attacks into Pakistand himself.
I don't think it's useful, in fact I think it's useless, to simply pick two things and then somehow think we can conclude morality of individuals based solely on those.
Why did everyone criticize Bush for creating the prison in guantanamo, but NO ONE is criticizing Obama for ACTUALLY KILLING people?
In effect, what we are saying is that it's not okay to torture people, but killing them is fine!!??
19 Feb 09
Originally posted by uzlessWho is morally superior when it comes to dealing with suspected terrorists?
Who is morally superior when it comes to dealing with suspected terrorists?
Consider the following:
Obama has authorized at least 2 missile strikes to kill suspected al Q terrorists in and around Pakistan since he has taken office. A few dozen people were killed instantly by the bombing attacks.
Bush authorized the arrest and imprisonment of a ...[text shortened]... ffect, what we are saying is that it's not okay to torture people, but killing them is fine!!??
I think Bush started it, and Obama is (in my point of view) finishing it.
So I don't really know the answer to that question, we can only especulate.
Bush imprisons them.
People also got killed during the Iraq war, and in afeganistan.
Why did everyone criticize Bush for creating the prison in guantanamo
Because it is believed that some of the prisoners are actually innocent, therefore their imprisonment is unfair.
There are also the allegations of torture.
NO ONE is criticizing Obama for ACTUALLY KILLING people?
Good point.
There was a thread called ''obama's anti-terror progress'', the article by the Wall St journal offer a very interesting point of view about Obama's strategy, have a look.
But back to the question, I think its because the liberal media refuses to question Obama, thats why there are no critics.
20 Feb 09
Originally posted by uzlessBush deserves criticism for what happened in guantanamo no matter what Obama does or will do. Everyone criticized bush for guantanamo because he deserved criticism.
Let me re-phrase it for you.
Why did everyone criticize Bush for creating the prison in guantanamo, but NO ONE is criticizing Obama for ACTUALLY KILLING people?
In effect, what we are saying is that it's not okay to torture people, but killing them is fine!!??
I don't see anyone suggesting it's ok to kill innocent people or to kill people.
Bush deserves criticism for a lot that he didn't get enough criticism for - including the kind of killings that you are putting up Obama as doing. Remember the wedding the US bombed in Afghanistan - 0 terrorists killed, many civilians. So Bush seems to have thought it was ok to kill people too.
Sure Obama should be criticized for what he did and does wrong.
I'm not happy with the air strikes in Pakistan myself.
That doesn't somehow say that Bush was somehow more "moral" because he not only killed people, but also tortured them when he captured them.
20 Feb 09
Originally posted by uzlessI don't suppose ordering the invasion of Iraq (a country that had nothing to do with the 9/11 attacks, and was no threat to American security) and slaughtering over 25,000 innocent women and children over the last 4+ years could be considered immoral. I guess if you wave the flag and the holy bible at people long enough, they'll forget all about this little tidbit if info...huh?? 😏
Who is morally superior when it comes to dealing with suspected terrorists?
Consider the following:
Obama has authorized at least 2 missile strikes to kill suspected al Q terrorists in and around Pakistan since he has taken office. A few dozen people were killed instantly by the bombing attacks.
Bush authorized the arrest and imprisonment of a ...[text shortened]... ffect, what we are saying is that it's not okay to torture people, but killing them is fine!!??
20 Feb 09
Originally posted by uzlessThey both killed people. There really is not much difference between Bush and Obama. So far Obama has operated much like a republican while merely pretending to different. Obama says he will close GITMO, but he will just move it to another country and call it something else.
Let me re-phrase it for you.
Why did everyone criticize Bush for creating the prison in guantanamo, but NO ONE is criticizing Obama for ACTUALLY KILLING people?
In effect, what we are saying is that it's not okay to torture people, but killing them is fine!!??
The stimulus bill has double the amount of tax cuts as infrastructure spending and tax cuts do not work well. It looks like a republican stimulus.
There is no left leaning news media as the establishment would want us to believe. If there was, more democrats would become president than republicans and the opposite is true in the last 50 years. The news media does not favor either party, they use both the left and the right very effectively.
The establishment wants people to take sides so the left and right fight with each other while their agenda moves forward. people who are divided are easily conquered.
The Banks are still not lending very much money and the Obama administration is doing nothing. The more things change the more they stay the same. Bush is a crook and so is Obama. Obama and McCain both proved they were crooks when they both voted for the bailout.
Let the banks fail. It will not make a big difference. They won't lend our money back to us anyway, even if the whole world suffers as a result. How can it get any worse?
20 Feb 09
Originally posted by generalissimoHow short people's memories are! The "liberal" media refused to question Bush until about 2007, but especially 2001-2005. The falsehoods and the rationale (and the now embarrassing 'media unanimity'😉 leading up to the aggressive war against Iraq were facilitated by the likes of the New York Times, Thomas Freidman, the TV news companies. The "liberal" media could have taken Bush out in 2006 but they didn't. Have you forgotten that already?
I think its because the liberal media refuses to question Obama, thats why there are no critics.
20 Feb 09
Originally posted by uzlessGood point.
Who is morally superior when it comes to dealing with suspected terrorists?
Consider the following:
Obama has authorized at least 2 missile strikes to kill suspected al Q terrorists in and around Pakistan since he has taken office. A few dozen people were killed instantly by the bombing attacks.
Bush authorized the arrest and imprisonment of a ...[text shortened]... ffect, what we are saying is that it's not okay to torture people, but killing them is fine!!??
20 Feb 09
Originally posted by uzlessso the war in iraq and afghanistan was not authorized by bush, but by daffy duck?
Who is morally superior when it comes to dealing with suspected terrorists?
Consider the following:
Obama has authorized at least 2 missile strikes to kill suspected al Q terrorists in and around Pakistan since he has taken office. A few dozen people were killed instantly by the bombing attacks.
Bush authorized the arrest and imprisonment of a ...[text shortened]... ffect, what we are saying is that it's not okay to torture people, but killing them is fine!!??