Wednesday, June 18, 2008

Time for some Politics?

I read an article in today's Washington Post about flak going between McCain's and Obama's campaigns (because they personally/specifically aren't saying some of the things) about terrorism and their respective stances. First it makes me curious when both sides use different stances to argue the same thing, both say their tactics will make America safer. I suppose they both could technically be correct, which would be the best case and a very good thing.

What really caught my interest is the write up about some specifics in Obama's anti-terrorism plans, which I've heard NOTHING of from him or any of the speeches I've heard of his, so I suppose we could say the media is failing to represent the democratic candidate (which is the opposite of the argument you usually hear), or Obama really hasn't said much about it. I'm not sure which is the case. I really like a lot of what was said, maybe even all of it, about Obama's plans to combat terrorism. I'm not sure where I stand on the debate between legal action against terrorists or military action against them, but if we legally pursue terrorists and it actually gets somewhere (which it seems to, vs. other types of cases that just don't go anywhere) then I can't argue too much with that. I don't buy the republican argument that arresting and imprisoning terrorists vs. just killing them outright is such a bad thing.

The other thing that really caught my attention was this paragraph:
But Obama has shown himself far more eager than Kerry and other Democrats to challenge the Republicans on the issue. He argues that the Bush administration's approach to fighting terrorism has been a failure, and he proposes an approach that mixes law enforcement, intelligence and military tools, including the possibility of invading Pakistan to pursue al-Qaeda if the Pakistani government does not cooperate.
How many people argue that the Iraq war is wrong simply because all war is wrong and any invasion of another country is bad and we're terrible human beings because we even thought about doing it? I hear way too many of those arguments, and see far too many bumperstickers about it, when it is such a completely naive and idiotic mind-set. Idealistic and happy, yes, but idiotic to think that such an ideal can ever be reached. But here you have Obama, the people's hero for saying he'll pull the US out of Iraq (would that be considered a defeat? what happens to nations that lose wars? how do other countries who want their resources view those countries?) saying that if Pakistan doesn't cooperate we'll invade them too! I wonder how that makes some people feel.

This should also make us wonder what the term "does not cooperate" really means, and if this is just a fake statement, ie - Pakistan could send us videos of terrorists partying in their capital and we would still give them more chances to cooperate, and what the quantitative factors are for cooperation. Did Iraq cooperate? Was Saddam within the realm of what Obama would consider "not cooperative"? Does this whole thing make Obama sounds like just another pushy, big-time American hypocrite?

Oh and also, Bush has called for a lift of the ban on drilling for oil around the US. What do people think of this move? I don't fully buy into his argument that the high gas prices are all the democrats' fault, but certainly if the war in Iraq was just for oil we really F-ed that part up by not taking much from there.

3 comments:

Dave The Game said...

Saying it's all the Democrats fault is fiction, though it's not all any one group's fault.

I've talked to a lot of people who think that politicians have no effect on gas prices, to which I disagree. Historically, strong economies and good foreign policy relations lead to cheap gas.

During the Clinton administration, when I first learned to drive, gas was $0.83 a gallon. Even adjusting for inflation, there's no way $4+ is a comparable figure.

Josh said...

I think the most important thing that Barack Obama has said about his strategy is that he is willing to engage the people in power in diplomatic discussion to try to curb terrorism - specifically Iran. The whole idea that someone who doesn't fall in line with us is immediately an enemy who must be destroyed goes against a great deal of common sense.

Not sure where I heard/read this next bit so take it with a grain of salt. Apparently there is no point in lifting the ban on drilling as a great deal of our unbanned oil resources aren't being put to use.

Also, a number of refineries were destroyed when hurricane Katrina hit which has damaged our own ability to produce refined material (diesel, gasoline, etc).

If I wasn't lazy I would try to do a bit of research and back those up with "facts" but this is the internet and who needs "facts". Truthiness shall prevail!

Bartoneus said...

I can't wait to see how diplomatic attempts with Iran go, considering the leader of the nation has said that his primary goals are to destroy Israel and then the US. Sounds super-good to me, let's be friends!

As far as the oil stuff goes, then I'd like to find out why we aren't using our unbanned oil resources. To me this sounds like BS made up just to invalidate the opposing argument, but that's without "facts" to back it up so who knows.