HIP HOP LIFESTYLE

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Will Obama Stand Up to the War Party? No chance!

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Will Obama Stand Up to the War Party? No chance!

    June 4, 2008
    Will Obama Stand Up to the War Party?
    Don't bet the ranch on it
    by Justin Raimondo

    If you want to know what the future holds in store, just take a look at what John McCain said recently to the AIPAC conference:

    "Rather than sitting down unconditionally with the Iranian president or supreme leader in the hope that we can talk sense into them, we must create the real-world pressures that will peacefully but decisively change the path they are on. Essential to this strategy is the UN Security Council, which should impose progressively tougher political and economic sanctions. Should the Security Council continue to delay in this responsibility, the United States must lead like-minded countries in imposing multilateral sanctions outside the UN framework. I am proud to have been a leader on these issues for years, having coauthored the 1992 Iran-Iraq Arms Non-Proliferation Act. Over a year ago I proposed applying sanctions to restrict Iran's ability to import refined petroleum products, on which it is highly dependent, and the time has come for an international campaign to do just that. A severe limit on Iranian imports of gasoline woul d create immediate pressure on Khamenei and Ahmadinejad to change course, and to cease in the pursuit of nuclear weapons."

    In short, a military blockade that would amount to having Iran in a death-grip, precisely what Franklin Delano Roosevelt did to the Japanese in order to provoke them into attacking. What the War Party is hoping for is another Pearl Harbor, a rationalization to launch a new world war.

    Barack Obama's response has been appeasement – not of the Islamic Republic of Iran, but of the Republicans here at home. Which is why the charge of appeaser, coming from the GOP, will tend to stick.

    Senator McCain's major talking point before the AIPAC crowd was that Obama voted against the Kyl-Lieberman resolution, which designated the Iranian Revolutionary Guard, a branch of the Iranian government, as a terrorist organization, giving U.S. forces carte blanche to attack. The response of the Obama camp was to say that they really had no problem with the fundamental aim of Kyl-Lieberman, just the resolution's implication that American troops in Iraq would now be tasked with countering Iranian influence.

    In short, Obama's answer amounted to yes, the Revolutionary Guard, and the government that directs them, are terrorists, but we shouldn't go after them in Iraq. Or,as Denis McDonough, who heads up the campaign's foreign policy shop, put it, "The debate last fall was about the broader implications and other parts of that amendment, giving the soldiers an additional mission in Iraq."

    Weasel words, if ever they were spoken.

    The fact of the matter is that Obama didn't vote on Kyl-Lieberman. He then attacked Hillary Clinton over it, saying it was yet another milestone on our road to war with Iran, and everybody knew it at the time. AIPAC and its allies in both parties have been agitating for a military confrontation with the Iranians since well before the Iraqi disaster jelled in the public consciousness, and everybody knows that, too. Does Obama really think he's deceiving anyone with a non-response that gives new meaning to the word "disingenuous"?

    In an interview with Fox News, Obama countered criticism of his willingness to talk to the Iranians by declaring:

    "Iran is stronger now than when George Bush took office. And the fact that we have not talked to them means that they have been developing nuclear weapons."

    Yet it means no such thing, as our own national intelligence estimate [.pdf] on the matter states quite plainly. Iran, like prewar Iraq, abandoned its nuclear weapons program some time ago. McCain's blockade is all about regime-change, and has nothing to do with "weapons of mass destruction." As Yogi Berra once put it, "It's déjŕ vu all over again!" Isn't this the same progression of alleged motivations we saw in the run-up to the invasion of Iraq? In Bizarro World, history repeats itself, the first time as farce, the second as tragedy.

    McCain is signaling his support for the long-rumored war Bush is said to be planning as his bloody "legacy" – a legacy of horror, to be sure, one that will long be remembered as the act of a monster.

    What Obama is signaling is nothing. Seeking to avoid the impression of weakness, he succeeds only in projecting it. As I write, he has yet to actually deliver his much-awaited speech to the AIPAC conclave, but there is little doubt Obama's appeasement of the Lobby will continue. He shares with John McCain the view that the U.S. government cannot and should not take an attack on Iran "off the table," to repeat the phraseology invariably utilized by politicians and pundits when this subject comes up. As if the Iranian people, who will suffer enormously in the course of an attack, are mere cards in a deck shuffled by U.S. policymakers. And you wonder why they hate us.

    The idea that Obama is going to save us from World War IV, as the neocons gleefully refer to the impending conflict, is, it turns out, a pipe dream. The sad fact of the matter was underscored by Jonathan Landay in the McClatchy newspapers:

    "The presumptive Republican nominee for president and the leading contender for the Democratic nomination are exaggerating what's known about Iran's nuclear program as they duel over how best to deal with Tehran."

    I don't believe, as Landay avers, that the presidential candidates of both major parties have failed to understand the issue because they haven't "studied it" enough. They've studied it, all right: after all, the McCain campaign is staffed by some of the Lobby's crack propagandists and street-fighting ideologues. Obama has also studied it and knows better than to test the Lobby's power this early in the campaign. That's assuming, of course, that he'll dare do so at any point, even if and when he makes it to the White House, much less during the struggle to get there.

    Our role in the Middle East has long been shaped by the advocates of an Israel-centric foreign policy, whose views subordinate U.S. interests to the political exigencies of dealing with a domestic lobby that acts, in a literal as well as a metaphorical sense, precisely as one would expect the agents of a foreign power to act. That AIPAC has skillfully skirted the issue of why it shouldn't register as such under the terms of the Foreign Agent Registration Act is a powerful testament to the Lobby's unhealthily decisive influence in Washington.

    Having successfully squelched, or at least indefinitely delayed, the long-upcoming trial of AIPAC officials Steve Rosen and Keith Weissman, the group's lawyers have scored a major victory in their battle to cover up the true nature of AIPAC as an instrument of Israeli policy, including its policy of spying on its great benefactor, stealing (and dealing) America's most closely guarded secrets.

    The trial of the AIPAC spies, who ferried top-secret intelligence to Israeli embassy personnel via the chief honcho of the Pentagon's Iran desk, would have demonstrated in open court what the Lobby's most vocal critics have long contended: that it functions as a de facto extension of the Israeli government. It's odd that a case that started out with such spectacular drama – no less than two FBI raids on AIPAC's Washington headquarters – should end so quietly.

    The Lobby's crime is not just that it puts Israel first. Worse, it represents the more unreasonable factions of that government, or possible future governments – the Likud-rejectionist wing that opposes any settlement of the Palestinian question except by expelling the whole lot of them to Jordan.

    That its power is now being effectively challenged by the J Street organization shows just how politically isolated are the traditional Zionist groups, which have long dominated the debate over U.S. policy in the Middle East. The Lobby's main base of support is not in the Jewish community, but in the dispensationalist wing of the "born again" Christian evangelical movement, epitomized by the Rev. John Hagee. The founder of Christians United for Israel has taken Jew-hating to a new level altogether, wedding ultra-Likudnik rhetoric to obvious contempt for the Jewish tradition. Hagee believes that, come the End Times – after the Final War between God and Satan, one pitting Israel and the U.S. against the Muslims and the Russians, with the Chinese probably thrown in for good measure – the grateful Jews will finally see the light and be converted to Christianity.

    The rest will, naturally, burn in Hell.

    The question that tantalizes is this: if Bush takes the hint and imposes a military blockade, will Obama get on board, or will he stand up to the War Party? I don't pretend to know the answer to that question; I can only hope he will, but I'm not betting the ranch on it.
    source

  • #2
    It is impossible to become the US president without proclaiming support for AIPAC, the average American simply buys the line that the Palestinians are terrorists and the Israeli's are victims, as they do with Iran. Most Americans know nothing more about Iran than the hostage crisis, they have no idea about how the US propped up the Shah and what a dreadful dictator he was. Do you not think its possible that Obama might just be saying, in a watered down manner, what he needs to say in order to get the average American to not fear voting for him? From snippets in debates that I have heard I don't think that he is view on foreign policy is typical of what we have seen from Washington in decades. Perhaps he simply believes that the best way he can change the current destructive path of the US is from the inside. And to do that he needs to be on the inside.
    "Nationalism is an infantile sickness. It is the measles of the human race."

    -Albert Einstein

    Comment


    • #3
      But what would happen if Obama decided not to be an idiot and finally say NO to this "war party". What would happen? he'd be assassinated? they can't just kill off everyone who doesn't support war

      But yeah Obama ain't changing shit unless he's putting on this pro-war act just until he gets elected. Doubt it's as easy as that though
      Originally posted by FunkySuicideGirl
      Ima sucker when some suck my lip or bite in it
      Originally posted by Syko Squidge
      ^
      fuck off you gay piece of cunt
      Originally posted by Otto
      That shit is fuck,

      Comment


      • #4
        I'm glad you made this thread. For the past weeks I have been discussing and pondering over the future of the Middle East regarding this upcoming election and America's soon-to-be new president. McCain is easy to understand, he is, truly, a replica of Bush, and if he does step in office, I would predict a third world war might occur. After all, attacking Iran (with its many allies) is suicidal to any nation, and McCain has talked before about how that is possible.

        Obama, however, I can't seem to crack open. I watched his entire speech at AIPAC - and for some reason, I was stunned. Lines like "Jerusalem is and always will belong to Israel... America will do whatever it has to do to keep Israel safe... America will always make sure Israel gets its way... Palestinians need to understand that terrorism is not the answer and unacceptable to America..." That's not all verbatim, but you get the point. Like Tricia said, I still have (little) hope that this is Obama's tactic to get into office, yet when he wins the elections, his foreign policy will not seem so bias. Ofcourse the lobbyists will still work, but maybe he won't give in to them quite easily? I don't know.
        As for how people in the Middle East see this, well, this question is all that is talked about now, especially after the AIPAC speech. It's ironic how a month before, you can walk down the street and ask any random person who they would prefer to be the next American president and they would yell in your face "Obama!" I think I even spotted some supporter shirts around. Now, not so much. After that speech he gave, entire episodes of popular shows were dedicated to targeting the possibility of change in America's foreign policy, and the conclusions were very pessimistic. Same with newspapers and magazines. I think Arabs are catching on to how change is less likely no matter who becomes the next American president.

        I strongly think the only method to break down the Israeli lobby in America is through the media. As far as I know, Americans are extremely ignorant about the Middle East and Arabs in general. The news they get is bias and so there are little means of communication. (Al Jazeera is banned from America - so much for democracy, right?)

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Tricia View Post
          It is impossible to become the US president without proclaiming support for AIPAC, the average American simply buys the line that the Palestinians are terrorists and the Israeli's are victims, as they do with Iran. Most Americans know nothing more about Iran than the hostage crisis, they have no idea about how the US propped up the Shah and what a dreadful dictator he was. Do you not think its possible that Obama might just be saying, in a watered down manner, what he needs to say in order to get the average American to not fear voting for him? From snippets in debates that I have heard I don't think that he is view on foreign policy is typical of what we have seen from Washington in decades. Perhaps he simply believes that the best way he can change the current destructive path of the US is from the inside. And to do that he needs to be on the inside.
          This is what I think or hope, that Obama is merely playing the game.

          I'm inclined to believe he is because if you look at his stances as a community organizer in Chicago, they were quite different. He was far more pro-palestinian and less hawkish and subservient to Israel in his community organizer and lawyer days, so I hope he merely played down those views once in the Senate as opposed to abandoning them completely.

          And lol @ any war with Iran. If the U.S. drops even one bomb in Iran, expect American deaths in Iraq to fucking skyrocket. Iran doesn't need long range bombs to hit America, there are 160,000 troops right across the border that provide a nice big target. Any U.S. leader that does not see that needs to be thrown out.
          Originally posted by ethan20
          There's a correlation between cervixal cancer in women and un-circumsized penises. Not to mention it almost cuts your bacteria count on the penis in half.
          Originally posted by reservoirGod
          Ethan sure does know alot about dicks

          Comment


          • #6
            There won't be any war with Iran. And if by some chance there was, America wouldn't have to do anything - Israel would annihiliate Iran.

            Comment


            • #7
              What kind of democracy makes us "hope" that the person we're voting for was lying to us?

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by MidwestSwing View Post
                There won't be any war with Iran. And if by some chance there was, America wouldn't have to do anything - Israel would annihiliate Iran.
                You're an idiot.

                Comment


                • #9
                  so says the jihadist who is delusional in thinking Israel shouldn't exist.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Jihadist? Israel shouldn't exist? Do you usually speak out of your ass like this? Atleast throw at me something true. Idiot.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      If you're going to attempt to insult me, "throw something at me that's true". You may get off calling me an "idiot" since the only way you get off is posting on this board due to the fact you're most likely fat, old, or a dyke, yet everytime we've had a "debate" you've goten proved wrong on almost every point.

                      The "pre-emptive attack" policy is unique to the bush presidency - Mccain has never stated he will continue this nor has he said he will attack Iran (he's said the opposite as Kyle pointed out). The "blockade" kyle talks about is simply speculation and paranoia, and even if it does happen, there is no justification behind Iran attacking anything - they would be the aggressor. America will not be the aggressor in any war with Iran.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Your idiocy is factual as much as I know that the sky is blue. "Due to the fact you're most likely fat, old, or a dyke?" Oo baby you got me there. Obviously you know what you're talking about. And please, please please please, I'm begging you - have a debate with me about Israel. My memory recalls no debate between us both. Yet again, more bullshit in your posts.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Kegz View Post
                          And lol @ any war with Iran. If the U.S. drops even one bomb in Iran, expect American deaths in Iraq to fucking skyrocket. Iran doesn't need long range bombs to hit America, there are 160,000 troops right across the border that provide a nice big target. Any U.S. leader that does not see that needs to be thrown out.
                          I think you might be a little over-confident here. Bush still has some 7 odd months in the White House, he also has nothing to lose. The amount of posturing we have seen on Iran in just the last two weeks seems to indicate that this is not over. I won't be surprised if there are air campaigns against Iran's alleged nuclear facilities in the next six months. I agree there won't be a ground invasion, but aircraft carriers are sitting in the gulf ready to launch air strikes with a moments notice.

                          I do hope you're right though.
                          "Nationalism is an infantile sickness. It is the measles of the human race."

                          -Albert Einstein

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by D_Bokk View Post
                            What kind of democracy makes us "hope" that the person we're voting for was lying to us?
                            Democacy's where being moderate is the key to winning.
                            "Nationalism is an infantile sickness. It is the measles of the human race."

                            -Albert Einstein

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by MidwestSwing View Post

                              The "pre-emptive attack" policy is unique to the bush presidency - Mccain has never stated he will continue this nor has he said he will attack Iran (he's said the opposite as Kyle pointed out). The "blockade" kyle talks about is simply speculation and paranoia, and even if it does happen, there is no justification behind Iran attacking anything - they would be the aggressor. America will not be the aggressor in any war with Iran.

                              Hmmm........ have you simply blocked this episode out; http://www.cnn.com/POLITICS/blogs/po...bomb-iran.html
                              "Nationalism is an infantile sickness. It is the measles of the human race."

                              -Albert Einstein

                              Comment

                              Post ad widget 300x250

                              Collapse

                              LATEST POSTS

                              Collapse

                              Topics Statistics Last Post
                              Started by Lurker07, 02-22-2011, 04:44 PM
                              1 response
                              10 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post Allanmathew  
                              Started by Kiryanvasez, Today, 05:05 AM
                              0 responses
                              2 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post Kiryanvasez  
                              Started by Gornawil, 05-13-2021, 05:33 AM
                              2 responses
                              28 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post Franok
                              by Franok
                               
                              Started by Monret, 05-17-2021, 02:23 AM
                              3 responses
                              28 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post Kikier
                              by Kikier
                               
                              Started by Nancystarkman, Today, 01:02 AM
                              0 responses
                              2 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post Nancystarkman  
                              Started by brianwilson, Today, 12:39 AM
                              0 responses
                              2 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post brianwilson  
                              Started by wnvjbartopd, Today, 12:16 AM
                              0 responses
                              3 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post wnvjbartopd  
                              Started by Psyko, 11-20-2005, 05:20 PM
                              1 response
                              59 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post noahharry  
                              Started by immesuddy, 10-31-2010, 03:05 AM
                              1 response
                              17 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post jesi
                              by jesi
                               
                              Started by Franok, Yesterday, 02:29 AM
                              0 responses
                              4 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post Franok
                              by Franok
                               
                              Working...
                              X