sits like a man, but he smiles like a reptile.
So, politics!
I remember the good old days (ie. 2004) when LiveJournal served as a great forum for political debate amongst my peers. Many a thread were saturated with exclamation points and capital letters thanks to the debates of Bush vs. Kerry, and it was a lot of fun. I enjoyed hearing other people's opinions, and solidifying my own, through constant attack and defense of opinions. Although, looking back and comparing my current mindset with that of my naively ideological younger self, I've come to realize that communism is kind of a crappy idea and Kerry is kind of a tool.
Still! I miss those good old days of yore. So let's debate McCain and Obama, shall we? Specifically, let's discuss their foreign policy, because that's one of the main reasons that I've decided to vote for Obama over McCain. Here are my thoughts:
Open negotiations
First and foremost, I strongly support Obama's stance that the United States should openly, freely negotiate with other countries (yes, even Iran and North Korea). The notion that somehow the United States is voicing support for these countries by sitting down with them at a negotiations table, or that we would be perceived as weak, is ridiculous. So is the notion that not talking with them constitutes some sort of punishment. In my mind, open negotiations show that we are serious about dealing with a country (even if we don't really support nutjobs like Ahmadinejad), whereas negotiating through backwater channels (while it gets the message across) cultivates a mutual disrespect between the two nations by refusing to acknowledge the official leaders.
We want to cultivate a relationship with Middle Eastern nations, not vilify them. Why not treat them with at least a basic level of dignity? Furthermore, open negotiations with Russia and China are going to be crucial when it comes to dealing with issues such as terrorism or nuclear proliferation (even if we despise them ideologically). Yes, I readily concede that Ahmadinejad is a despicable human being... but that doesn't mean we should talk with him. We don't really have anything to lose, I don't think.
I would much rather see a president with this open mindset handling the negotiations with North Korea right now.
Respect for international law
Furthermore, Obama has a clear respect for international law, and wants to cultivate our image abroad, an image that has been frankly shattered by Bush's cowboy administration. Plus, since Obama has around an 85% approval rating in Europe (no, seriously), I think he's a candidate who can actually accomplish this. And yeah, I know there are those of you who think we shouldn't care about other countries, but let's be honest. If we want to solve global issues (ie. terrorism, global warming, nuclear proliferation), we need the respect and attention of the international community.
Torture
I respect that McCain was tortured for many years after he was taken as a POW in Vietnam. I respect that, because of this experience, people think he has more of a right to be lenient when it comes to U.S. torture. That said, the United States shouldn't fucking torture people, and I don't care if you've gone through it before or not. McCain isn't pro-torture, exactly. I don't want to give this impression. However, he did help pass a bill that granted nine years of retroactive immunity to U.S. soldiers who committed acts of torture in order to get information from enemy combatants. He also said that the president could use torture (oh, sorry, "interrogation techniques") that did not cause "serious" mental or physical harm (umm... so it's okay to slap or tickle them, or what?).
McCain does oppose waterboarding, so that's good, but why did he leave this leeway? That's a pretty loose interpretation of the Geneva Convention, if you ask me. In fact, the bill specifically gave President Bush the freedom to "interpret" the "meaning" of the Geneva Accords. First off, why the fuck is this bill, which is clearly an international issue, being passed in Congress? But more to the point: is McCain really compromising on an issue like torture? Is the U.S. really that barbaric? Yeah, I know, the U.S. was in imminent danger, and we needed that information. But by the same token, how do you think al-Qaeda keeps recruiting members? A couple pictures from Abu Ghraib, coupled with some propaganda text, has to plant some (pretty reasonable) seeds of anger in the heads of young idealists. So I don't really buy that "it was necessary" argument either. And even if I did, torture is always wrong in my book. Always. McCain, for all his honorable service, puts forth a view of the United States that I just can't accept.
Barack, on the other hand, is staunchly against torture and always has been, and that's part of why he has my vote. He doesn't really have a history here, so there's not much else to say about that.
By the way, the aforementioned bill that McCain helped to pass also suspended habeus corpus for prisoners of war, and said that any information received through the previous instances of torture should be valid in a court of law. Which brings me to my next point! How convenient.
Rights for detainees
Withholding rights from prisoners of war: a necessity of wartime, or a governmental atrocity?
While I understand the other side, I tend towards the "it's an atrocity" side of this argument. Where are our standards, America? Don't we have an obligation to hold these trials to the same standards as we do our citizens? I say "yes", and Obama agrees (and, incidentally, so does the Supreme Court). As he put it nicely, Guantanamo created a sort of "legal black hole" where Bush's administration was ever to do what they pleased, when they pleased, how they pleased. In my opinion, and Obama's, this is an awful human rights abuse. "This is an important step toward re-establishing our credibility as a nation committed to the rule of law, and rejecting a false choice between fighting terrorism and respecting habeas corpus," he said of the recent court ruling that granted detainees certain civil liberties.
McCain, on the other hand, decried the opinions of both Obama and the Supreme Court as (and I quote), "one of the worst decisions in the history of this country." Easy there, Mac.
As a side note, both Obama and McCain favor dismantling the Guantanamo prison, which is great. I hope that whoever is elected follows through with that.
Understanding the Afghanistan is more important than Iraq
Let's be honest: it is. I have long expressed my opinion that one of the worst things the Bush White House did was take us into Iraq: not necessarily because it was the wrong thing to do, but more because they misled the American public into thinking Iraq was somehow linked in 9/11 (which it really wasn't, aside from a few tenuous connections). Iraq was no imminent threat. Afghanistan was where the problem was then, and Afghanistan is where the problem is now.
Obama knows this, and some of the troops that he intends to withdraw from Iraq will be redeployed in Afghanistan. I wholeheartedly support this move, just as I wholeheartedly support our continued retaliation against al Qaeda (a dangerous terrorist organization that, through their actions in 9/11, has clearly invoked our right to retaliate against them). While we are dicking around in Iraq, the situation in Afghanistan continues to deteriorate and al Qaeda gets a stronger foothold each day. Afghanistan is where we needed to act then, and it's where we need to act now.
Understanding that Iraq is a posterboard for terrorist recruits
Yeah yeah, I know, Obama has always been against the Iraq war (or is it the Iraq occupation by know) but who the fuck cares? What really matters is what his stance is now. And I like Obama's current stance. A lot.
The Iraqi prime minister, Nuri Kamal al-Maliki, is currently calling for the United States to remove United States troops from the country. Obama thinks this is a great opportunity for the United States to begin a phased troop withdrawal, and I agree. Aside from sovereignty issues (if a country asks us to get out, we should get the fuck out: we don't own Iraq, we're just there until they want us out, which is now), Obama says that we have wasted troops, money and resources there. I also agree.
But the really key issue here is that our Iraq occupation (along with our aforementioned human rights abuses) has become a posterboard for terrorist recruitment. Al Qaeda has actually become stronger and more sophisticated than they were seven years ago (even if they haven't had a successful attack in a while, thanks to our heightened security). Let's get out before the situation gets worse, and let's stop wasting money and lives.
Just to be clear, Barack isn't talking about mindlessly removing our troops. He wants a phased withdrawal (not an immediate one), he wants to fund a refugee support program, he would only leave the secure areas at first, and he wants to aggressively negotiate with other neighboring countries before he pulls out completely. Plus, he will be leaving a residual force there for limited missions(which is reasonable: let's not go all or nothing, guys).
Also, you can call me cynical, but McCain/Bush have expressed no interest in leaving Iraq. They seem to think "withdrawing" is equal to "surrendering". I don't buy that. The Bush/McCain policy runs against the will of the Iraqi public, the will of the American public, and (as discussed above) America's interests abroad.
Anyway, yeah. That's about all I have to say about that. Let me know what your thoughts are.
- Ethan
P.S. I don't hate McCain as much as this post suggests. Let's be clear: he was the best of the Republican nominees (by far), but he's no Obama.
I remember the good old days (ie. 2004) when LiveJournal served as a great forum for political debate amongst my peers. Many a thread were saturated with exclamation points and capital letters thanks to the debates of Bush vs. Kerry, and it was a lot of fun. I enjoyed hearing other people's opinions, and solidifying my own, through constant attack and defense of opinions. Although, looking back and comparing my current mindset with that of my naively ideological younger self, I've come to realize that communism is kind of a crappy idea and Kerry is kind of a tool.
Still! I miss those good old days of yore. So let's debate McCain and Obama, shall we? Specifically, let's discuss their foreign policy, because that's one of the main reasons that I've decided to vote for Obama over McCain. Here are my thoughts:
Open negotiations
First and foremost, I strongly support Obama's stance that the United States should openly, freely negotiate with other countries (yes, even Iran and North Korea). The notion that somehow the United States is voicing support for these countries by sitting down with them at a negotiations table, or that we would be perceived as weak, is ridiculous. So is the notion that not talking with them constitutes some sort of punishment. In my mind, open negotiations show that we are serious about dealing with a country (even if we don't really support nutjobs like Ahmadinejad), whereas negotiating through backwater channels (while it gets the message across) cultivates a mutual disrespect between the two nations by refusing to acknowledge the official leaders.
We want to cultivate a relationship with Middle Eastern nations, not vilify them. Why not treat them with at least a basic level of dignity? Furthermore, open negotiations with Russia and China are going to be crucial when it comes to dealing with issues such as terrorism or nuclear proliferation (even if we despise them ideologically). Yes, I readily concede that Ahmadinejad is a despicable human being... but that doesn't mean we should talk with him. We don't really have anything to lose, I don't think.
I would much rather see a president with this open mindset handling the negotiations with North Korea right now.
Respect for international law
Furthermore, Obama has a clear respect for international law, and wants to cultivate our image abroad, an image that has been frankly shattered by Bush's cowboy administration. Plus, since Obama has around an 85% approval rating in Europe (no, seriously), I think he's a candidate who can actually accomplish this. And yeah, I know there are those of you who think we shouldn't care about other countries, but let's be honest. If we want to solve global issues (ie. terrorism, global warming, nuclear proliferation), we need the respect and attention of the international community.
Torture
I respect that McCain was tortured for many years after he was taken as a POW in Vietnam. I respect that, because of this experience, people think he has more of a right to be lenient when it comes to U.S. torture. That said, the United States shouldn't fucking torture people, and I don't care if you've gone through it before or not. McCain isn't pro-torture, exactly. I don't want to give this impression. However, he did help pass a bill that granted nine years of retroactive immunity to U.S. soldiers who committed acts of torture in order to get information from enemy combatants. He also said that the president could use torture (oh, sorry, "interrogation techniques") that did not cause "serious" mental or physical harm (umm... so it's okay to slap or tickle them, or what?).
McCain does oppose waterboarding, so that's good, but why did he leave this leeway? That's a pretty loose interpretation of the Geneva Convention, if you ask me. In fact, the bill specifically gave President Bush the freedom to "interpret" the "meaning" of the Geneva Accords. First off, why the fuck is this bill, which is clearly an international issue, being passed in Congress? But more to the point: is McCain really compromising on an issue like torture? Is the U.S. really that barbaric? Yeah, I know, the U.S. was in imminent danger, and we needed that information. But by the same token, how do you think al-Qaeda keeps recruiting members? A couple pictures from Abu Ghraib, coupled with some propaganda text, has to plant some (pretty reasonable) seeds of anger in the heads of young idealists. So I don't really buy that "it was necessary" argument either. And even if I did, torture is always wrong in my book. Always. McCain, for all his honorable service, puts forth a view of the United States that I just can't accept.
Barack, on the other hand, is staunchly against torture and always has been, and that's part of why he has my vote. He doesn't really have a history here, so there's not much else to say about that.
By the way, the aforementioned bill that McCain helped to pass also suspended habeus corpus for prisoners of war, and said that any information received through the previous instances of torture should be valid in a court of law. Which brings me to my next point! How convenient.
Rights for detainees
Withholding rights from prisoners of war: a necessity of wartime, or a governmental atrocity?
While I understand the other side, I tend towards the "it's an atrocity" side of this argument. Where are our standards, America? Don't we have an obligation to hold these trials to the same standards as we do our citizens? I say "yes", and Obama agrees (and, incidentally, so does the Supreme Court). As he put it nicely, Guantanamo created a sort of "legal black hole" where Bush's administration was ever to do what they pleased, when they pleased, how they pleased. In my opinion, and Obama's, this is an awful human rights abuse. "This is an important step toward re-establishing our credibility as a nation committed to the rule of law, and rejecting a false choice between fighting terrorism and respecting habeas corpus," he said of the recent court ruling that granted detainees certain civil liberties.
McCain, on the other hand, decried the opinions of both Obama and the Supreme Court as (and I quote), "one of the worst decisions in the history of this country." Easy there, Mac.
As a side note, both Obama and McCain favor dismantling the Guantanamo prison, which is great. I hope that whoever is elected follows through with that.
Understanding the Afghanistan is more important than Iraq
Let's be honest: it is. I have long expressed my opinion that one of the worst things the Bush White House did was take us into Iraq: not necessarily because it was the wrong thing to do, but more because they misled the American public into thinking Iraq was somehow linked in 9/11 (which it really wasn't, aside from a few tenuous connections). Iraq was no imminent threat. Afghanistan was where the problem was then, and Afghanistan is where the problem is now.
Obama knows this, and some of the troops that he intends to withdraw from Iraq will be redeployed in Afghanistan. I wholeheartedly support this move, just as I wholeheartedly support our continued retaliation against al Qaeda (a dangerous terrorist organization that, through their actions in 9/11, has clearly invoked our right to retaliate against them). While we are dicking around in Iraq, the situation in Afghanistan continues to deteriorate and al Qaeda gets a stronger foothold each day. Afghanistan is where we needed to act then, and it's where we need to act now.
Understanding that Iraq is a posterboard for terrorist recruits
Yeah yeah, I know, Obama has always been against the Iraq war (or is it the Iraq occupation by know) but who the fuck cares? What really matters is what his stance is now. And I like Obama's current stance. A lot.
The Iraqi prime minister, Nuri Kamal al-Maliki, is currently calling for the United States to remove United States troops from the country. Obama thinks this is a great opportunity for the United States to begin a phased troop withdrawal, and I agree. Aside from sovereignty issues (if a country asks us to get out, we should get the fuck out: we don't own Iraq, we're just there until they want us out, which is now), Obama says that we have wasted troops, money and resources there. I also agree.
But the really key issue here is that our Iraq occupation (along with our aforementioned human rights abuses) has become a posterboard for terrorist recruitment. Al Qaeda has actually become stronger and more sophisticated than they were seven years ago (even if they haven't had a successful attack in a while, thanks to our heightened security). Let's get out before the situation gets worse, and let's stop wasting money and lives.
Just to be clear, Barack isn't talking about mindlessly removing our troops. He wants a phased withdrawal (not an immediate one), he wants to fund a refugee support program, he would only leave the secure areas at first, and he wants to aggressively negotiate with other neighboring countries before he pulls out completely. Plus, he will be leaving a residual force there for limited missions(which is reasonable: let's not go all or nothing, guys).
Also, you can call me cynical, but McCain/Bush have expressed no interest in leaving Iraq. They seem to think "withdrawing" is equal to "surrendering". I don't buy that. The Bush/McCain policy runs against the will of the Iraqi public, the will of the American public, and (as discussed above) America's interests abroad.
Anyway, yeah. That's about all I have to say about that. Let me know what your thoughts are.
- Ethan
P.S. I don't hate McCain as much as this post suggests. Let's be clear: he was the best of the Republican nominees (by far), but he's no Obama.