|
and extrapolate.
I find that an often useful approach: If I'm not sure how to evaluate someones position on one issue
because I either lack the basic knowledge or don't have access to all the facts, I look at how this person stands on other issues.
Often the same kind of motivation drives a person's actions in different areas. Also, often people will apply the same type of logic to different issues. Take Sarah Palin for instance: Since I know that she thinks the world is 6000 years old, I think I can safely say that her stance on climate or economy is probably bullshit too, even though I'm neither an economist nor a meteorologist. She rejects the scientific method in one area. It is reasonable to assume that she will do the same in other areas.
Obama gave us an eloquent speech on how the war in Afghanistan is necessary because we are facing an evil enemy that will not negotiate and is comparable to Hitler. The problem is: No one can really backcheck this statement. He probably has access to alot of information that is not publicly available. Public knowledge of Al Quaeda, the Taliban etc. is most likely not nearly up to date and does not accurately reflect the actual situation. "All things are in motion" as one says.
However: We do know how Obama handled, for instance, the health-care reform. We see how he caved to people like Joe Liebermann. I find it reasonable to assume that, given the specialized knowledge he may or may not have about Afghanistan, it is likely that he will follow the same approach of striking a compromise with the right-wing that will lead to a much-less-than-ideal outcome and is driven more by American corporate interest than by "defeating an evil enemy".
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
