Talk:Barack Hussein Obama/update

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search
  • escalated the Afghanistan War - perhaps to success when on May 1st he announced that the United States had killed September 11th mastermind and terrorist Osama bin Laden

I'd take issue with this statement. The War on Terror, Afghan & Iraq operations, were alweays preventative in nature, not retribution. Killing bin Laden was pure retribution, and risks (a) further reprisal actions from al qaeda, (b) loss of a key ally in the War on Terror, Pakistan. Further, just as the Iraq operation had nothing to do with War on Terror, as GW Bush critics loudly maintained, what pray tell does an unauthorized invasion of an ally, in this case Pakistan, have to do with the Afghan War? Rob Smith 11:35, 7 May 2011 (EDT)

Hm - I wonder if no part of the War if Afghanistan was retributive, but you're right that even if part was that doesn't make it a success. I'll change the wording (as soon as I think of what to write)--IDuan 11:49, 7 May 2011 (EDT)
The execution of bin Laden marks a policy change in the war on terror: it no longer is to prevent future attacks, but it focal point has been retribution for past actions. And a key ally has been sacrificed for the future. This is a marked change. Rob Smith 12:18, 7 May 2011 (EDT)
I think you might be jumping ahead a little - as of now Pakistan is still an ally, and in fact apologizing for incompetence. Also his execution has been a focal point since President Bush announced that he would be taken "dead or alive", and on bin Laden's computers we found tentative plans for future attacks - so there was some preventative aspect. But we shall see - perhaps the future will prove you correct, but personally I think the bullet to his head could potentially be what is the killing blow to an organization that now finds itself obsolete and without a charismatic leader. But alas, I'm getting off point :)
What would you say your expertise in? I'm not an expert in really any issue, so I can do research and write about whatever, but obviously if you're an expert in his, say, early life, then I'd want to leave that to you.--IDuan 13:07, 7 May 2011 (EDT)
So, while this may be a victory for Obama's approval ratings and reelection efforts, it's hardly a victory for the war on terror, coalition building, or preventing future attacks. Rob Smith 13:21, 7 May 2011 (EDT)
Hmm, very true - you've convinced me; it will likely hurt U.S.-Pakistani ties. I suppose I'm just unsure this was really a change in policy; I think President Bush (based on reactions of his cabinet and his own reaction) would have made the same call. By the way - I just did a stub section on healthcare (which is a subsection of the economy).--IDuan 13:29, 7 May 2011 (EDT)
Aside, my gut feeling is Bush would not nave violated Pakistan's territorial integrity without consent. Much remains shrouded in secrecy, but a few things are certain, the US knew of his whereabouts for some exteneded period of time beforehand, and his location next to the Pakistan military academy is curious, to put it mildly.
As for experise, historical writing is my first interest, coupled with economics. Rob Smith 13:52, 7 May 2011 (EDT)

Certain sections removed

I'm open to adding these sections back - but I just wanted to explain why I removed them (and to be 100% honest i do think the article works better without them - again keeping in mind we're hoping to keep it concise - for the reasons stated):

  • I removed a section on "Abortion rights" - mostly because as President he hasn't done that much in that much - and what he did do in the State Senate (which was a lot) was previously mentioned. We do link to his ideology article.
  • I also removed the fiscal policy section - it mentioned two critiques: extending the Bush tax cuts across the board - which was a well known political compromise (and to be fair compromises are fair game for criticism, but just this wouldn't warrant its own section) and it said that a proposed Obama plan would raise taxes on the poor - however that was the proposed plan and not what was actually passed.
  • I also removed the terrorist attacks statement - some of which was unfounded (it cited attempted terrorist attacks), and also I'm not sure it's completely fair to compare domestic relatively minor incidents to a international attack that killed 3,000. I'm not saying Bush is at all to blame for the international attack, but rather I just don't think that's a strong argument.

But again, the main reason I removed these sections was because I was keeping article length in mind (and also I think the intro to the presidency reads a little better now).--IDuan 20:05, 7 May 2011 (EDT)

Fair enough, but some of the material needs to be reworked. Rob Smith 20:13, 7 May 2011 (EDT)
Agreed. Just so you know the article is officially 32kb - which is supposed to be the ideal threshold, so I am trying to slim as much as possible (without erasing necessary context)--IDuan 20:15, 7 May 2011 (EDT)
We may have a delay. I'm havig trouble with 404 blocks when I try to edit the Barack Obama page to remove content. It's been that way all afternoon. Rob Smith 21:48, 7 May 2011 (EDT)
I can't edit either page, Barack Obama or Early life and career of Barack Hussein Obama. I suspect we're experiencing another cyber-attack. We may have to put updating this page on hold until this denial of service ceases. Rob Smith 22:01, 7 May 2011 (EDT)
I can currently edit each. I was thinking I'd write a section on Guantanamo, expand early life and (if you don't mind) move it myself?--IDuan 23:08, 7 May 2011 (EDT)

What is this article good for?

Is this page necessary?--JoeyJ 06:13, 7 August 2014 (EDT)