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

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

Thanks for posting a very informative thread but regardless of what he(Obama) does he'll always be under fire simply due to his ethnic background.Otherwise this would be overlooked

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.

This has nothing at all to do with race, so why bring it up? Is all criticism of Obama, no matter what the issue, always about race?

Simple... a ban was established on all commercial whaling 24 years ago. A few countries are getting around the ban by saying it's for science, etc, but they and everyone else knows its just a way around the ban, and the pressure is on them to slow down or stop. This proposal essentially throws up the hands of surrender and legalizes commercial whaling again, removing any moral or legal pressure that was brought to bear by bending the rules. Will only those few countries hunt whales, or will the legalization cause other countries that had given up on whaling due to the ban come out of retirement to hunt whales again too? It's saying "ok, I guess we can't stop you from killing whales, so we'll legalize it again to make it easier for you if you promise to only kill a few..."

Are you saying it is a justified or unjustified criticism of the president?

Explain how many whales are being killed now per year, and explain how many whales would be killed per year by this new proposal and then explain why less is better than more.

I am only going off of the link you provided.

Most or all environmentalists don't believe that this will actually reduce the number of whales killed. If they did, they'd probably support it. And for that matter, Japan and the other countries would probably not support it if it drastically reduced the number of whales they could catch, yet they are pushing for this ban to be lifted. So I think the reduction is mostly just rhetoric, but we'd have to wait and see what the result is if it passes.

For one thing, it doesn't seem to outlaw killing whales for scientific research, which is what the countries have been doing. It simply legalizes commercial killing again.

I think he should fix that oil spilling thing first, that's far more worse...

Look where the article came from. Fox News. Just a little bit ago, when Obama went down to check out the oil spill, they were bashing him for being dressed "too fancy" and should have dressed more blue collar, even though he has just wearing some slacks and a button up shirt with the sleeves rolled up. Besides the issue of tons of oil spilling into the ocean. Fox is a joke.

I'm pretty sure that governments are capable of tackling more than just one issue at a time.

I see this proposal as a reasonable compromise if it does have the intended effect of reducing the numbers killed each year. The ban hasn't worked so it's probably time compromises were sought with the Japanese. Certainly unlikely to be a popular decision by Obama but it may well be the best one since the Japanese are hardly likely to start honouring the ban anytime soon.

I happen to like Fox, it's the only major news outlet that isn't just a shill for the Democrat Party. But if you don't like Fox you can find this story on many, many outlets, and Pierce Brosnan has already made a video condemning Obama for it.

No not all but majority of the criticism towards him is due to his ethnic background along with any mistakes he unitentionally makes being broadcast almost instantly on the news.No president in the entire US history has ever been under such spotlight but then again their has never been a black president.Just a while back he was thought to have been seen in a rap video and as a result the news was talking about it the whole day until confirming that was not him but rather someone who possessed similar look(s)

And how have you determined that the majority of the criticism about Obama is due to race? Because IMO, very, very little, almost negligible, amount of the criticism against him is race-based. The vast majority is due to his radical, socialist policies, vast overspending, corruption, and incompetence.

Also, Bush was under far more criticism than Obama ever has due to the leftist media in this country.

Mainly because Blacks are considered minoritys in the US and majority of its population are Caucasian.

That's quite a statement.

If ALL environmentalists thought it was a terrible idea, do you think anyone would go through with it (especially a Democratic prez)?

I think we are mixing terminology. "Lifting the ban" is a bit of a misnomer as there is no ban on whaling now. Countries like Japan are killing whales legally.

That's not a "ban".

So if the idea is to change the rules so that the rules are more strict and that fewer whales are killed, then I would support that. People can call it "legalization of whale killing" but whales are being killed legally now.

You never answered my first question, Samurai.

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

Yes, I think Obama especially is the kind who'd go through with it because he's all about appeasement and deal-making rather than standing on principles.

And yes, there is a ban on commercial whaling. It's been around for 24 years, pushed for by President Reagan. There is no ban on scientific experimentation on whales that results in the whale's death, after which they harvest the meat.

So, which environmentalist groups are for this, then? Read these:

http://www.earthisland.org/journal/i...d_whaling_ban/
Pierce Brosnan Urges Obama to 'Save the Whales' - Tonic

Action Alert! - ACS - American Cetacean Society

Obama to Lift Whaling Ban?

Whaling ban in jeopardy? | The EcoSpheric Blog

Obama Breaks a Whale of a Campaign Promise

http://www.ifaw.org/Publications/Gen...e534_61384.pdf

YouTube - ifaw's Channel

Protecting Whales Around the World | IFAW Web Site

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.)

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.

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.

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.

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

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"?

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.:o

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.

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