Quote:
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.
Quote:
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.