Obama is not a good president

My sincere apologies if something from my previous round offended you, but I did not commit logical fallacies as you claimed. Usually, only the debate itself is scored, and the comments section is ignored. I was trying to be gracious in consenting that readers should allow your sources to be considered. I did not commit an ad hominem attack, but rather explained my rationale as to why your newness might qualify you for an exemption to the norm. Additionally, it was you who added a red herring to our debate by responding to someone else about the historical use of American chemical weapons, which had nothing to do with our conversation. As I said before in the hopes of avoiding confusion for readers, I am not compelled to comment on this. Moreover, debating with other people within the context of our debate is unusual and not really appropriate. For that matter, leveling false accusations that an opponent has committed fallacies is also not appropriate. I’d like to be clear that I am not asking voters to dock you on conduct, but I would appreciate it if you avoided leveling false accusations at me in the future. And now, back to our debate. Osama “All Obama did was confirm the go orders for seal team six. ” This is a much riskier decision than my opponent is willing to give credit for. Imagine that the attack had failed, and/or that the team had been shot down in Pakistani airspace. For the damage that this kind of incident could cause, recall the damage to Carter’s presidency from the failed Iranian hostage recovery. Pakistan is a sovereign nation, and nominally an ally. An unauthorized incursion into their territory to kill or apprehend a target that they are supposed to be helping us to hunt down is no small thing. The diplomatic fallout of doing this unilaterally has been significant, but knowing what we know about the conflicted loyalties Pakistan’s intelligence community, it seems that it was the correct decision not to alert Pakistan to our intentions and seek their aid. Obama did get lucky in the sense that if the mission was a failure, or if the intel was bad and an innocent family had their home stormed by seal team six, then imagine how much damage that would have done to Obama’s Presidency and even more broadly to America’s reputation. By giving Obama credit for making the right decisions here, I am in no way diminishing the bravery and excellence of our SEALS or other military forces. I’m merely pointing out that Obama, as Commander in Chief, knew what the forces available to him were capable of, had faith in them, and gave those soldiers the opportunity to take their shot. That is all that can be expected of a President. Before moving on to the next point, I’ll take this opportunity to retract my statement about Bush, and apologize for making an unfair comparison. Circumstances in Tora Bora were different. Afghanistan For centuries, Afghanistan has earned the reputation of being “the graveyard of empires” [7] because no occupying power has ever successfully won the country. From Alexander the Great, to the British, to the Russians, all have suffered extremely high casualties in costly ventures because of the difficult terrain and complex tribal loyalties. That doesn’t mean the war was unwinnable, but ignoring history’s lessons of just how challenging this unforgiving land would be, America ventured headlong into Afghanistan - but not with our full might. Instead, the Republican leadership divided our forces in a foolish and unnecessary attack on and occupation of both Afghanistan and Iraq – a country which did not attack us – based on bad intelligence and an impatience to find out the truth. We cannot stay embroiled in these wars indefinitely and allow costs to escalate forever. If either theater ends disastrously, it will have been because of overreaching in the early phase of the war on terror, and splitting our resources fighting on two fronts. Obama is not to blame for this decision, in fact, as a senator he was an outspoken critic of it. We are not an empire, and we are not colonizing these nations. Getting out of these costly occupations and turning governance and responsibility over to the people of Iraq and the people of Afghanistan is in the best interests of America. However much we have already spent is a sunk cost. We can’t get it back. We can only decide how much more blood and treasure to spend on this, and what potential benefit will accrue as a result. This is not to say that we should be indifferent to the welfare of the Afghanis, but ultimately it is their country, not ours. Their patriots must fight for the liberty of their countries just as our forefathers fought for ours. We’ve done what we can for them by spending a decade of blood and treasure, the rest is up to them. And it isn’t like we’re leaving them high and dry - as my opponent provided in his source (which I feel better supports my position), we are still providing 4 billion/year. This is far less than the war had ever cost us, at only 4% of what we were paying on average in the last few years, but it is enough to give them a fighting chance [8]. Image of America/Popularity of Obama I would ask Pro to provide clarification of how our popularity in the Middle East would improve by maintaining long-unpopular occupations that most of the Islamic world opposes as being “imperialist”. Additionally, I want to note that the article Pro cited indicates that even after the erosion of Obama’s high popularity around the world, people’s opinion about our country and our leader still remains far higher than when he inherited office. I am therefore confused at how my opponent thinks that article or these facts benefit his case, when it seems more reasonable to conclude that it bolsters mine. After all, an America guided by Obama is, even at its lowest likeability, still much better thought of around the world than his predecessor’s America was. How would this prove that he is not a good president? Illegals and Voter Fraud Until my opponent supports his accusations of voter fraud with at least some sort of source or evidence, then he is merely offering baseless rumors and hearsay, which our readers have no cause to accept and I have no obligation to respond to. If Pro offers a source of dubious quality (such as a biased right wing blog), I’ll challenge it as such. If he offers a story from a legitimate news outlet (Fox is close enough) to corroborate his claim, then in that case I’ll be glad to respond, but I’m not going to do his homework for him by searching around for news stories that resemble what he’s talking about. Thank you all for your time and attention. Back to Pro. 7) . http://www.cnn.com... 8) . http://www.infoplease.com...