Obama Under Fire for Backing Deal to Lift Global Ban on Commercial Whaling

[samurai007]

Originally Posted by MMM

That's really just a matter of opinion. You can give a dozen examples one way and I can give a dozen the other.



Call it what you want, but whales are being killed legally by these countries. If changing terminology results in less whales being killed, as your non-left swinging news source states, then there should be little to complain about.



I didn't ask who. You said "most if not all" environmentalists are against this. And now gave a list of a couple dozen among the thousands of environmentalist groups that exist.

I guess it is hard for me to continue the conversation until you answer my first question: Do you think the criticism of the president is justified or not in this situation?

Yes, I think criticism of him for agreeing to this deal seems justified. I don't understand why that's a big deal to you. Is it some kind of a "gotcha" question, where you spring the "betcha didn't know the negotiations for this started under Bush, ha HA!"? Yes, I do know that, but Bush didn't complete it or sign it, Obama seems like he will, despite his promise.

I guess I see it like this: Let's say Al Queda came to America and said "we don't like being hunted and despised outlaws, but we refuse to stop killing. But we'll make you an offer... remove us from the list of terrorist groups, stop chasing us, legalize our actions to give us legitimacy, and we promise to kill only half as many Americans over the next 10 years as we killed in the last 10. This will save the lives of thousands of Americans!" Should we accept such a deal, even if they could be trusted to uphold their end of it? I would say no.

(I don't mean to compare Japan and Al Queda as morally equivalent, they most definitely aren't, and killing whales is not the same as killing people. I'm just trying to make a point that even if a deal can be trusted to save lives, some deals aren't worth it.)

[Nyororin]

Originally Posted by samurai007

I guess I see it like this: Let's say Al Queda came to America and said "we don't like being hunted and despised outlaws, but we refuse to stop killing. But we'll make you an offer... remove us from the list of terrorist groups, stop chasing us, legalize our actions to give us legitimacy, and we promise to kill only half as many Americans over the next 10 years as we killed in the last 10. This will save the lives of thousands of Americans!" Should we accept such a deal, even if they could be trusted to uphold their end of it? I would say no.

(I don't mean to compare Japan and Al Queda as morally equivalent, they most definitely aren't, and killing whales is not the same as killing people. I'm just trying to make a point that even if a deal can be trusted to save lives, some deals aren't worth it.)

The biggest flaw with this comparison is that Japan isn`t doing something illegal. Are they taking advantage of a loophole? YES. But that doesn`t mean that they`re doing something illegal. You have to be aware of the law and follow it pretty closely to find and take advantage of loopholes.

The comparison would make sense if, say, Al Qaeda was taking advantage of a loophole and killing people in a way that was "legal". But, umm... They`re not.

[caisaki]

Originally Posted by samurai007

FOXNews.com - Obama Under Fire for Backing Deal to Lift Global Ban on Commercial Whaling
What do you think? Is the return of commercial whaling a good idea that will end up saving whales?

I don't think so. Whales are very precious creatures. Lifting the ban means more whale killing, a whole lot more than you think. If other countries are allowed to hunt whales, then we might as well say that they are going to be extinct within a few years.

[MMM]

Originally Posted by samurai007

Yes, I think criticism of him for agreeing to this deal seems justified. I don't understand why that's a big deal to you. Is it some kind of a "gotcha" question, where you spring the "betcha didn't know the negotiations for this started under Bush, ha HA!"? Yes, I do know that, but Bush didn't complete it or sign it, Obama seems like he will, despite his promise.

No "gotcha". I just see you as no friends of environmentalists, and no friend of the president, so I was having a hard time reading whose side you were on here.

Originally Posted by samurai007

I guess I see it like this: Let's say Al Queda came to America and said "we don't like being hunted and despised outlaws, but we refuse to stop killing. But we'll make you an offer... remove us from the list of terrorist groups, stop chasing us, legalize our actions to give us legitimacy, and we promise to kill only half as many Americans over the next 10 years as we killed in the last 10. This will save the lives of thousands of Americans!" Should we accept such a deal, even if they could be trusted to uphold their end of it? I would say no.

(I don't mean to compare Japan and Al Queda as morally equivalent, they most definitely aren't, and killing whales is not the same as killing people. I'm just trying to make a point that even if a deal can be trusted to save lives, some deals aren't worth it.)

Like Nyororin, I reject this comparison for obvious reasons, including the ones you provided.

[Unknown]

Originally Posted by samurai007

So what? Criticism of a black President by white voters is not racism.

Either way most can't stand the fact that he is black along with being over them in terms of authority(excluding congress since he can't make certain war decisions without their approval)

[samurai007]

Originally Posted by Unknown

Either way most can't stand the fact that he is black along with being over them in terms of authority(excluding congress since he can't make certain war decisions without their approval)

Again, where are you getting that from? Do you personally know a whole ton of people complaining that "he's black so he can't be the boss of me?" No one is saying that anywhere in public, and I don't know anyone like that. Are you just making assumptions about peoples' motivations? Are you reading it somewhere? This is so far from the truth I just find it shocking. Where in the US do you live that you are seeing this attitude so frequently that you can claim it's "most people"?

[caisaki]

Originally Posted by Unknown

Either way most can't stand the fact that he is black along with being over them in terms of authority(excluding congress since he can't make certain war decisions without their approval)

If most can't stand his "black" authority, then how come he became the president-elect? Anyway, there is nothing wrong with being black. Being different from most of the people in authority doesn't mean that Obama is not capable of doing great things. I'm not his fan, I'm just sharing my opinion.

[Tyrien]

Originally Posted by MMM

But Japan is whaling legally now, using a loophole. I don't understand how people would complain about closing a loophole, resulting in the deaths of fewer whales than are being killed now.

Read the title and tone of the article and you should understand why so many get upset so fast. It's never about facts, but spin.

[Unknown]

Originally Posted by samurai007

Again, where are you getting that from? Do you personally know a whole ton of people complaining that "he's black so he can't be the boss of me?" No one is saying that anywhere in public, and I don't know anyone like that. Are you just making assumptions about peoples' motivations? Are you reading it somewhere? This is so far from the truth I just find it shocking. Where in the US do you live that you are seeing this attitude so frequently that you can claim it's "most people"?

A persons actions always speak louder than their words.Also a while back on the news someone said "Just remember we put you there" and when saying we that is not just one person