Is It Time for the Peace Movement to Start Protesting Senator Obama?
Abookamongstthemany
Posts: 8,209
http://votersforpeace.us/press/index.php?itemid=147
April 02 2008
Is It Time for the Peace Movement to Start Protesting Senator Obama?
By Kevin B. Zeese
In the last two weeks Senator Obama has been sounding rather hawkish. Perhaps he believes he has the Democratic nomination wrapped up and now can start running to the center-right. The peace movement needs to let him know his positions are not acceptable.
Some peace advocates had already given up on Sen. Obama because of his record since he came to the U.S. Senate. His voting record on Iraq and foreign policy is very similar to Sen. Clinton. Obama did make a great speech before the war began, saying much the same thing that peace advocates were saying, but that seems to have been the peak of his peace advocacy. Indeed, Black Agenda Report described how Obama took his anti-war speech off his website once he began running for the senate. And since coming to the senate he has voted for Iraq funding, giving Bush hundreds of billions of dollars. Further, he is calling for nearly 100,000 more U.S. troops as well as keeping the military option on the table for Iran.
But in the last two weeks he has moved to the right. On April 1, Amy Goodman of Democracy Now! interviewed Obama about what type of U.S. residual forces he would leave behind in Iraq. First, Obama acknowledged combat troops would be left behind as “a strike force in the region.” Where would this strike force be based? Obama said “It doesn't necessarily have to be in Iraq; it could be in Kuwait or other places.”
Of even greater concern are the 140,000 civilian troops who are in Iraq, the private security forces -- contractors, mercenaries, whatever label you put on them they are a privatized military. With regard to these Obama said: “we have 140,000 private contractors right there, so unless we want to replace all of or a big chunk of those with US troops, we can't draw down the contractors faster than we can draw down our troops.” When Goodman pressed him on whether he would support a ban on private military forces Obama said “Well, I don't want to replace those contractors with more U.S. troops, because we don't have them, alright?”
Obama seems to be choosing his words very carefully when he talks of his Iraq plan. He always talks in terms of only “withdrawing” “combat” troops and ending “the war.” Withdrawal is not the same as bringing troops home as it could mean moving the troops somewhere else in the region and into Afghanistan. Combat troops are a minority of the 150,000 troops in Iraq. And, ending the “war” is not the same as ending the occupation. Indeed, Obama plans to keep the massive U.S. Embassy as well as the long-term military bases being built in Iraq. No wonder he does not talk about ending the occupation as it does not seem that is his intent.
What are the two-thirds of Americans who oppose the Iraq war and want to see U.S. forces brought home to think? It sounds like Obama would leave more than 100,000 and perhaps even more than 200,000 public and private military troops in Iraq. And, he would leave strike forces in the region “not necessarily in Iraq” who could strike in Iraq when needed. Is this what he means by withdrawal?
The other important speech that Obama gave focused on his broader approach to foreign policy. In this speech, given on March 28th, Obama praised the foreign policy of George H.W. Bush. Obama described his foreign policy as a traditional U.S. approach – certainly not the “change” he promises in his big campaign speeches saying “my foreign policy is actually a return to the traditional bipartisan realistic policy of George Bush's father, of John F. Kennedy, of, in some ways, Ronald Reagan.”
There is lot to unravel in the foreign policy of these former presidents. While these X-President’s are much more popular than the current occupant of the White House, which is why Obama believes tying himself to those will garner votes, each of their foreign policy strategies relied heavily on the use of the U.S. military. Here are some highlights:
To set the tone for their foreign policy, George H.W. Bush and Ronald Reagan get credit for negotiating with Iran to hold the U.S. hostages until after Reagan-Bush took power in return for military and financial assistance to Iran. This act put their personal political ambitions ahead of the needs of U.S. citizens being held hostage.
Perhaps the best known Reagan-Bush foreign policy was the Iran-Contra scandal, a scheme to circumvent U.S. law by providing arms to overthrow the government in Nicaragua. They shipped weapons to the mullah’s in Iran in return for cash which was used to fund the Nicaraguan fighters. This was done because the Congress passed a law preventing U.S. tax dollars being used to arm the rebels in Nicaragua.
As part of their campaign against the Soviet Union the Reagan-Bush team also armed Islamists fighting the Soviets in Afghanistan. This allowed Osama bin Laden to gain a stronghold in Afghanistan and is one of the root causes of today’s military adventures.
Thus Reagan-Bush armed two current “enemies” Iran and al Qaeda. In fact, they also armed Saddam Hussein by providing him with the makings of an array of weapons of mass destruction. The arming of Saddam continued with the Bush-Quayle administration even after Saddam “gassed” his own people.
President George H.W. Bush was the only CIA director to become president. As in the Reagan era, Bush I treated Saddam Hussein as a close ally. Shortly before the Gulf War he approved the sale of an additional $4.8 million in "dual-use" technology to factories identified by the CIA as Saddam's nuclear and bio-weapons programs. And, just before Saddam invaded Kuwait, Bush sold him $600 million in advanced communications technology.
Prior to the Kuwait invasion the Bush administration sent signals to Saddam that the U.S. was not worried about a military conflict between Iraq and Kuwait. But when Saddam sent tanks into Kuwait the U.S. responded with an aggressive aerial campaign that destroyed much of Iraq’s civilian infrastructure and a 100 hour ground war. Bush then urged anti-Saddam forces to rise-up against Hussein and then left them hanging without U.S. support. Then, the “peace” with Iraq led to the sanctions of the Bush and Clinton administrations which killed hundreds of thousands of Iraqis.
The only Democrat mentioned by Obama was JFK. Obama did not mention the less popular LBJ, Jimmy Carter or his opponent’s husband, Bill Clinton. Perhaps because the Kennedy administration was so long ago he expects voters not to remember their militarism. And, the Camelot aura of Kennedy is one Obama aspires to.
Of course, President Kennedy must be given credit for the steady expansion of the Vietnam conflict and its escalation into a quagmire that trapped his successor. Kennedy drew a line in the sand against communism in Vietnam saying “"Now we have a problem making our power credible and Vietnam looks like the place.” Troop escalation went from hundreds to more than 15,000, the Green Berets and helicopters were both sent in. Kennedy approved a coup which led to the killing of the prime minister and his brother in 1963 and a succession of regimes seen more and more as U.S. puppets. Kennedy was assassinated shortly after the coup but the path into Vietnam had been laid.
What other foreign policy misadventures does JFK get credit for? One of note was a military attack on Cuba known as the Bay of Pigs. This invasion by 1,500 exiled Cubans ended in disaster for the U.S. as it was easily rebuffed by Castro with most of the troops captured. JFK did not give up on regime change after this failure; in fact he escalated it with Operation Mongoose. Mongoose, which lasted until the Cuban Missile Crisis in October 1962, included among its plans the use chemical weapons against sugar cane workers, sending the Green Beret’s into Cuba, using gangsters to kill Cuban police, propagandizing the Cuban people, sabotaging mines, cash rewards for killing Cuban officials and false flag attacks against the U.S. to be blamed on Cuba.
And Kennedy also gets credit for taking the initial steps that ended up with Saddam Hussein in Iraq. In 1963 Kennedy backed a coup against the Iraqi government. The CIA helped bring the Baath Party to power. The CIA provided the new Iraqi government with a list of suspected Communists to kill. Saddam Hussein was one of those who carried out the killings which included hundreds of doctors, teachers, technicians, lawyers, Iraqi professionals and officials. The U.S. began to arm the Iraq regime with weapons they used against the Kurds and U.S. and British oil companies began profiting from Iraqi oil.
No doubt Senator Obama is well-aware of this history, so what did he mean when he said his foreign policy would emulate these three? Are we to expect more coups of regimes we don’t like? The arming of future adversaries? Illegal actions to circumvent the Congress? Now that Sen. Obama has tied himself to Kennedy, Reagan and H.W. Bush he needs to clarify whether this Hall of Shame history of bi-partisan U.S. foreign policy is what he intends to emulate.
Senator Obama clearly thinks he can take the peace movement for granted. Many peace advocates support Obama because of his pre-U.S. Senate speech against the Iraq invasion. But, now his foreign and Iraq policies are coming more closely into focus maybe it is time to re-think that support. It is time for the peace movement to push Sen. Obama to be a better candidate, one that will really bring change to U.S. foreign policy.
For those who like Obama’s message of “hope” and “change” it is important to realize his foreign policy, as he is beginning to define it, brings neither. Obama is risking the loss of votes to three strong alternatives to the two parties. If Obama is not pulled back toward his pre-Senate position more and more peace voters will desert him for either former Representative Cynthia McKinney of the Green Party, Ralph Nader and Matt Gonzalez’s independent campaign, or possible Libertarian candidates Mike Gravel or former congressman Bob Barr. These are all candidates who are strongly opposed to military intervention and the Iraq occupation. In November there will be choices of real peace candidates or a major party nominee who is no longer promising real change.
Pressure now from the peace movement, if heeded by Sen. Obama, will make him a stronger candidate. Is it time to for the peace movement to protest Obama?
Kevin B. Zeese is Executive Director of Voters for Peace.
April 02 2008
Is It Time for the Peace Movement to Start Protesting Senator Obama?
By Kevin B. Zeese
In the last two weeks Senator Obama has been sounding rather hawkish. Perhaps he believes he has the Democratic nomination wrapped up and now can start running to the center-right. The peace movement needs to let him know his positions are not acceptable.
Some peace advocates had already given up on Sen. Obama because of his record since he came to the U.S. Senate. His voting record on Iraq and foreign policy is very similar to Sen. Clinton. Obama did make a great speech before the war began, saying much the same thing that peace advocates were saying, but that seems to have been the peak of his peace advocacy. Indeed, Black Agenda Report described how Obama took his anti-war speech off his website once he began running for the senate. And since coming to the senate he has voted for Iraq funding, giving Bush hundreds of billions of dollars. Further, he is calling for nearly 100,000 more U.S. troops as well as keeping the military option on the table for Iran.
But in the last two weeks he has moved to the right. On April 1, Amy Goodman of Democracy Now! interviewed Obama about what type of U.S. residual forces he would leave behind in Iraq. First, Obama acknowledged combat troops would be left behind as “a strike force in the region.” Where would this strike force be based? Obama said “It doesn't necessarily have to be in Iraq; it could be in Kuwait or other places.”
Of even greater concern are the 140,000 civilian troops who are in Iraq, the private security forces -- contractors, mercenaries, whatever label you put on them they are a privatized military. With regard to these Obama said: “we have 140,000 private contractors right there, so unless we want to replace all of or a big chunk of those with US troops, we can't draw down the contractors faster than we can draw down our troops.” When Goodman pressed him on whether he would support a ban on private military forces Obama said “Well, I don't want to replace those contractors with more U.S. troops, because we don't have them, alright?”
Obama seems to be choosing his words very carefully when he talks of his Iraq plan. He always talks in terms of only “withdrawing” “combat” troops and ending “the war.” Withdrawal is not the same as bringing troops home as it could mean moving the troops somewhere else in the region and into Afghanistan. Combat troops are a minority of the 150,000 troops in Iraq. And, ending the “war” is not the same as ending the occupation. Indeed, Obama plans to keep the massive U.S. Embassy as well as the long-term military bases being built in Iraq. No wonder he does not talk about ending the occupation as it does not seem that is his intent.
What are the two-thirds of Americans who oppose the Iraq war and want to see U.S. forces brought home to think? It sounds like Obama would leave more than 100,000 and perhaps even more than 200,000 public and private military troops in Iraq. And, he would leave strike forces in the region “not necessarily in Iraq” who could strike in Iraq when needed. Is this what he means by withdrawal?
The other important speech that Obama gave focused on his broader approach to foreign policy. In this speech, given on March 28th, Obama praised the foreign policy of George H.W. Bush. Obama described his foreign policy as a traditional U.S. approach – certainly not the “change” he promises in his big campaign speeches saying “my foreign policy is actually a return to the traditional bipartisan realistic policy of George Bush's father, of John F. Kennedy, of, in some ways, Ronald Reagan.”
There is lot to unravel in the foreign policy of these former presidents. While these X-President’s are much more popular than the current occupant of the White House, which is why Obama believes tying himself to those will garner votes, each of their foreign policy strategies relied heavily on the use of the U.S. military. Here are some highlights:
To set the tone for their foreign policy, George H.W. Bush and Ronald Reagan get credit for negotiating with Iran to hold the U.S. hostages until after Reagan-Bush took power in return for military and financial assistance to Iran. This act put their personal political ambitions ahead of the needs of U.S. citizens being held hostage.
Perhaps the best known Reagan-Bush foreign policy was the Iran-Contra scandal, a scheme to circumvent U.S. law by providing arms to overthrow the government in Nicaragua. They shipped weapons to the mullah’s in Iran in return for cash which was used to fund the Nicaraguan fighters. This was done because the Congress passed a law preventing U.S. tax dollars being used to arm the rebels in Nicaragua.
As part of their campaign against the Soviet Union the Reagan-Bush team also armed Islamists fighting the Soviets in Afghanistan. This allowed Osama bin Laden to gain a stronghold in Afghanistan and is one of the root causes of today’s military adventures.
Thus Reagan-Bush armed two current “enemies” Iran and al Qaeda. In fact, they also armed Saddam Hussein by providing him with the makings of an array of weapons of mass destruction. The arming of Saddam continued with the Bush-Quayle administration even after Saddam “gassed” his own people.
President George H.W. Bush was the only CIA director to become president. As in the Reagan era, Bush I treated Saddam Hussein as a close ally. Shortly before the Gulf War he approved the sale of an additional $4.8 million in "dual-use" technology to factories identified by the CIA as Saddam's nuclear and bio-weapons programs. And, just before Saddam invaded Kuwait, Bush sold him $600 million in advanced communications technology.
Prior to the Kuwait invasion the Bush administration sent signals to Saddam that the U.S. was not worried about a military conflict between Iraq and Kuwait. But when Saddam sent tanks into Kuwait the U.S. responded with an aggressive aerial campaign that destroyed much of Iraq’s civilian infrastructure and a 100 hour ground war. Bush then urged anti-Saddam forces to rise-up against Hussein and then left them hanging without U.S. support. Then, the “peace” with Iraq led to the sanctions of the Bush and Clinton administrations which killed hundreds of thousands of Iraqis.
The only Democrat mentioned by Obama was JFK. Obama did not mention the less popular LBJ, Jimmy Carter or his opponent’s husband, Bill Clinton. Perhaps because the Kennedy administration was so long ago he expects voters not to remember their militarism. And, the Camelot aura of Kennedy is one Obama aspires to.
Of course, President Kennedy must be given credit for the steady expansion of the Vietnam conflict and its escalation into a quagmire that trapped his successor. Kennedy drew a line in the sand against communism in Vietnam saying “"Now we have a problem making our power credible and Vietnam looks like the place.” Troop escalation went from hundreds to more than 15,000, the Green Berets and helicopters were both sent in. Kennedy approved a coup which led to the killing of the prime minister and his brother in 1963 and a succession of regimes seen more and more as U.S. puppets. Kennedy was assassinated shortly after the coup but the path into Vietnam had been laid.
What other foreign policy misadventures does JFK get credit for? One of note was a military attack on Cuba known as the Bay of Pigs. This invasion by 1,500 exiled Cubans ended in disaster for the U.S. as it was easily rebuffed by Castro with most of the troops captured. JFK did not give up on regime change after this failure; in fact he escalated it with Operation Mongoose. Mongoose, which lasted until the Cuban Missile Crisis in October 1962, included among its plans the use chemical weapons against sugar cane workers, sending the Green Beret’s into Cuba, using gangsters to kill Cuban police, propagandizing the Cuban people, sabotaging mines, cash rewards for killing Cuban officials and false flag attacks against the U.S. to be blamed on Cuba.
And Kennedy also gets credit for taking the initial steps that ended up with Saddam Hussein in Iraq. In 1963 Kennedy backed a coup against the Iraqi government. The CIA helped bring the Baath Party to power. The CIA provided the new Iraqi government with a list of suspected Communists to kill. Saddam Hussein was one of those who carried out the killings which included hundreds of doctors, teachers, technicians, lawyers, Iraqi professionals and officials. The U.S. began to arm the Iraq regime with weapons they used against the Kurds and U.S. and British oil companies began profiting from Iraqi oil.
No doubt Senator Obama is well-aware of this history, so what did he mean when he said his foreign policy would emulate these three? Are we to expect more coups of regimes we don’t like? The arming of future adversaries? Illegal actions to circumvent the Congress? Now that Sen. Obama has tied himself to Kennedy, Reagan and H.W. Bush he needs to clarify whether this Hall of Shame history of bi-partisan U.S. foreign policy is what he intends to emulate.
Senator Obama clearly thinks he can take the peace movement for granted. Many peace advocates support Obama because of his pre-U.S. Senate speech against the Iraq invasion. But, now his foreign and Iraq policies are coming more closely into focus maybe it is time to re-think that support. It is time for the peace movement to push Sen. Obama to be a better candidate, one that will really bring change to U.S. foreign policy.
For those who like Obama’s message of “hope” and “change” it is important to realize his foreign policy, as he is beginning to define it, brings neither. Obama is risking the loss of votes to three strong alternatives to the two parties. If Obama is not pulled back toward his pre-Senate position more and more peace voters will desert him for either former Representative Cynthia McKinney of the Green Party, Ralph Nader and Matt Gonzalez’s independent campaign, or possible Libertarian candidates Mike Gravel or former congressman Bob Barr. These are all candidates who are strongly opposed to military intervention and the Iraq occupation. In November there will be choices of real peace candidates or a major party nominee who is no longer promising real change.
Pressure now from the peace movement, if heeded by Sen. Obama, will make him a stronger candidate. Is it time to for the peace movement to protest Obama?
Kevin B. Zeese is Executive Director of Voters for Peace.
If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
Post edited by Unknown User on
0
Comments
Which would you rather have? an anti-war politician that planned on ending the war but publically said he was for continuing it just to win the election (a liar, basically) or an anti-war politician who had absolutely no chance of winning yet was very publically outspoken on his views, even if that meant the pro-war guy wins?
i'm just curious. i want to pick your brains.
You don't think a vocally anti-war candidate could win with close to 70% of the public wanting the war over? I feel one could win with that platform.
I really have a disdain for liars and it doesn't say much for how you'll run he country if you are already lying to get in.
The pro-war guys keeps winning bc the Dems are too scared to be Dems...the opposition party! You have those who will vote for them anyways to offset a Rep and then you have the rest of us who will not support a pro-war candidate again. It splits us when I think we could all actually get behind and win with a Dem who has like Kucinich or whoever as long as the platform and record actually represented the ideals of the left instead of the center. But the Democratic party shoots itself in the foot every time with these republican lite candidates and they will keep losing because of it. Maybe Paul will split the Reps, too. But I'm going to use my vote to reflect my true voice.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
Not this chick.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
Then we might get a few good years in until they too become hopelessly corrupt.
Sorry but that's not the democracy I know.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
It will be interesting to see what Obama has to say when he gets the nomination and gets to deal directly with McCain. Those debates will be telling. I think it's a little early for the anti war crowd to get their panties in a knot.
book, not ranting on you here, just using part of a quote as a standing poing for my own rant
I'm 100% positive that they couldn't. 70% doesn't translate to pulling all troops now. Kucinich said he'd have them out in 4 months. Faster than anyone else. Dennis was ignored.
We have a moral and ethical obligation now. Like it or not. What we need is someone that is taking the right approach, and truly wants us out of Iraq as soon as possible. Pulling our troops out of Japan, Germany, Italy, S. Korea needs to happen either, then we could pay for public schools being better than high end private schools, everyone could have full coverage health insurance, we could cut the deficit, and taxes, while having enough troops to lock down Iraq and Afghanistan enough that we can turn pull out and turn sections over in a way that those countries can manage the situation. May take 2 years, but it would work. Not leaving 40k troops behind is important also, bomb the dam embassy they are building.
With that being said, an anti-war candidate is an idiotic approach in my opinion, it's reckless, ignorant of the situation, and would kill more than handling the current situation properly with the end goal of actually leaving, which yes, would take a couple years.
No anti-war candidate will win the White House, and as for any anti-war movement, no movement is going on, cause it alienates those that they should be partnering with. Igorant absolutess stances aren't going to help anyone now. We are past that. Besides, if they had any power, they would have worked to replace all that voted to authorize Bush the power to go to war.
The Left and Right need to figure out that they have no power what so ever when they alienate the middle. The moderates are what can give them power.
Sorry, I believe this isn't a black and white issue. Anti-war, bring'em home and watch tens of million die possibly. Or stay the course for a 100 years, fueling the hate toward us, depriving citizens of the money (through taxes), lack of health care, and education. We've accomplished nothing in the last 40 years except fueling more divisiveness, which lead to George W Bush being our President.
Again, not picking on anyone's opinions, just ranting and pushing my own...
Stop by:
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=14678777351&ref=mf
well, i hope your idealism works for you
That's certainly your opinion to have. I just don't share it. And opposing war and needless violence doesn't need to be considered some far left, radical stance....people are of course going to paint it that way but that's the way it is. I think your post was filled with many exaggerations just like you probably think my posts are. We will just have to live with the fact that we don't all have the same ideals and we don't all have to get behind the same candidate just because the Dems and their supporters say so.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
It's got me this far.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
let me slightly adjust, I think I'm reacting to those that seem to have the media's attention, it seems to be a stop now, period approach. We are past that stage in Iraq now. Some battles still being waged, but it's not war as much as it's a true police action (not to be confused with Vietnam, which was officially a police action, but was actually a war).
less people are dieing now, than would be if we walk away now, but the current approach isn't going to get us out of there ever for all we know.
we should have never went into Iraq, but that can't be undone.
Stop by:
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=14678777351&ref=mf
And I've consistently disagreed with that opinion when it was the Republicans saying it and still do now that it's the Democrats.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
regardless of what I said, I definitely agree with you here. I just think the idea of protesting Obama, when those that are responsible for far worse, including Hillary (her war vote) haven't been truly been called on that, media babble doesn't qualify.
I also don't think any anti-war (if that means pulling out of Iraq immediately) has a chance of 5% in a presidential election.
I also think anti-war needs to be redefined. All presidential candidates should be anti-war. In fact Obama has actually said just that last year, and having to take over the situation in Iraq and not pulling troops out right away doesn't mean someone isn't anti-war.
to finish, lol...I agree with the premise that none of that Obama hasn't shown he will be different that Hillary in regards to Iraq, but I also think anyone that tries to say he's this or that because of associations, or who works for him, or who's donated money doesn't define his future actions. I'm optimistic about him being even more different in his approaches that he is showing.
I like the hope of future possibilities with Obama right now. If he fails, then maybe a true third party leader can come forward to make more headway in national politics....
Stop by:
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=14678777351&ref=mf
I think reality says otherwise. Since G W said mission accomplished, who has been responsible for killing more Iraqis in Iraq, the US and it's coalition troops, fellow Iraqis, Al Qaeda, Iran? I would wager that it's fellow Iraqis have killed more Iraqis than all the other groups combined since Bush's utterance.
Republicans use that statement like any other, to dodge the real issue, and justify their mistakes.
I'm using it as a truth of reality. We are there, our government f'd up, the current path isn't right, but I think the right path will mean staying in Iraq a couple more years.
So you may disagreed with them saying it, but words have different meaning, even when said the same way.
Stop by:
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=14678777351&ref=mf
Hillary's not going to win the nod...so I really don't bother with her. If there are people here who don't already know what slime she is then they have simply not been paying attention.
I don't like Obama's record and his accomplishments since getting his senate seat don't stand out to me. I don't really know why so many have this great hope about him. What has he done to deserve your admiration, trust etc...? And his platform just isn't what I'd like it to be or many like myself would consider him but he isn't far off from McCain on some issues and way too centerist on others. He's just not offering anything much. The Republicans don't seem to shy away from being Republicans. I don't know why the Democrats always come across so spineless and unable to stick to their guns. Maybe they are out to get theirs in the end and are basically a mirage of an opposition party to keep us happy or appeased would be the better word. They give in way more than they fight their battles. Then they just shrug and say 'oh well, we tried' Oh well, I think I'll pass.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
If we didn't fund the military mission, it would be a disaster, and the wrong people would pay.
I'm tired of that approach, we need to change who is representing us, or run ourselves.
I will say, my problem with the Ron Paul's, Dennis Kucinich's, Ralph Nadar's, and others is how easy they make the changes they say we need to make will be. Our government is a fricken mess. We will have to break a lot to fix anything, and we as citizens will struggle in some regards. Until the realities are talked about, change won't happen. It's easy to say this is wrong, and I would do that, but not to many things that are wrong, are isolated. They will effect many other things.
Stop by:
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=14678777351&ref=mf
I agree, Dem's are very spineless. Obama, like Clinton hasn't done anything dangerous while in the Senate, because I think both always expected to run for President.
Obama's the best we've seen in quite awhile in regards to Hope, intelligence, competence. He has been consistant since before he was in politics, and while he's been in it. Both good and a bad thing.
I actually don't think he is to moderate, but that's not bad either if he is, he will bring people together, and right now that is something we as a count
ry really needs.
this country is far to passive for any real change right now. Don't mean not to strive for it, but I think it'll be another generation before we see it. Sooner would be better.
Obama might actually listen and be able to be persuaded far more than Bush, Clinton, and especially McCain. I don't see that possibility in anyone esle.
Stop by:
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=14678777351&ref=mf
You're using it to promote your version of the truth based on what you think of the info you've read. It is all speculation, though. I think those words mean the same coming from whoever is saying it. You don't know who is killing who any more than I do. But I do know our presence creates tension and it can't go on much longer. We are borrowing millions from China to keep this occupation going. We can't afford it and our future as a nation is getting more bleak each month we stay over there. And what do we have to show for it? There's still infighting and the associated deaths...we're making sure of that by arming them. There's still insurgency killing our troops and the civillians...it never seems to let up.
And how is our presence going to keep this infighting from going on when we are actively arming each side with our troops caught in the middle? When would it stop? When could we leave and they suddenly stop killing each other? How are we going to rid Iraq of the problems that cause these civil disputes?
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
agreed, huge problem here, especially with Blackwater, and who owns/runs it. It's the start of the Crusades all over again possibly.
No President alone will make a difference. It'll take citizens actually educating themselves on the world. It'll take a Congress that is full of Gen X/Y'ers at a minimum, if not younger gen. The greatest generation, and baby boomer politicians will not be apart of any real change.
I think the hope is in the future, though the fight continues now.
Stop by:
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=14678777351&ref=mf
I agree about China, but that problem is far bigger than you've stated, and broader.
Of course we can't sustain the costs. Again, leadership and ideaology issues.
I also agree on the point about arming and even financing the different sides, but that is the wrong approach, that is a leadership problem. Just walking away isn't going to fix it either. Even more so now that we have armed and financed the factions that were attacking us and each other just 6 months ago before the payments started.
Actually seems you have more of the conspiracy theorist stuff going by saying we don't know. We know a lot, there is still some reporting, actually reporting from outside the green zone. Most of it by international (non US) reporters about who is killing who. Also, I'm confident in the 20 friends of mine that are deployed in Iraq, and what they tell me.
If you are talking about how many Iraqis merc's are killing, I'd say we don't know, but again, it's not like it's a surprise that Iraqis are killing Iraqis. Anyone that knows history of that part of the world knows that there is ethnic, religious, tribal, family, political, and communtal issues at all levels that lead to people being killed. Sunni factions kill other Sunni factions, let alone Sunni vs Shiite, etc...
Saudi Arabia, if you are not from a tribe that is akin or friend of the royal family, then you are probably living in the desert in tents.
I'm far more informed and experienced that you probably think.
Stop by:
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=14678777351&ref=mf
Why should that warrent not doing too much with their seat? If they were sincere about wanting change shouldn't they have been pushing hard for it then? Did some things to be proud of with the position? Ambition shouldn't give you a free pass to be ineffective. And I'd like to see someone with the actions to back up their rhetoric...then I'd believe their pretty speeches about how much they care about these issues. Just a few actions/accomplishments proving just how much they care. Their word 4 years later don't mean much.
What has he done to for you to form this opinion?
How will he bring people together? I keep hearing this but don't know what it's based on.
I think the country has been more vocal than ever about wanting some 'real' change. People are starting to get really interested in what's going on in the gov't bc they are finally seeing how it's affecting them. And isn't Obama's main theme been about change and hope? 'yes we can!'? And the crowds go wild at the sound of that. Seems like they're really hoping for change to me. But I think these are more empty words from Obama than anything else, sadly.
Well, looking at his platform, I'm going to have to disagree with that one. It seems like his supporters bend to match his platform instead of them persuading him to listen to their voice on the matter. I'd feel a lot more comfortable if I saw people here admitting more readily the weaknesses in Obama's plans and heard people addressing him about it. All I keep seeing is 'Obama is great and he is the best we've got. Deal with it.' That just turns me off. People are supposed to influence their govt, not roll over and take whatever bone they're throwing out to you at the moment. Demand more and the anti-war crowd might get behind you in doing so.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
It wasn't a mess eight years ago. It can be fixed, much needs to be undone, but all is not lost. I'm afraid if someone like obama gets elected we will be much worse off though. We need someone who is going to say NO to spending, Ron Paul would have been that man.
Seriously I don't understand why people who don't like big government would not support a candidate who basically says that people should be left alone, there is too much government in their lives, we have too much wasteful spending, and supports the Constitution. Is it just cooler to support some media darling of the moment? Or is just cool to vote for the guy because people feel guilty about the ways blacks have been treated in the past? So by voting for them they have some self assurance that they really aren't racist because by voting for him they have some cred. Like the guy who says, "I'm not racist, I have a black friend."
One thing I like though is that nobody here is for that she-devil.
No, it's the reality of our politics today. No one wants to rock the boat. It's one of the many many things wrong, but there is no alternative right now, and I truly believe that Bush has separated us so much, that the Hope of Obama is something that will have a strong and positive effect.
Would I like more, yes, but I don't see an alternative candidate. I wouldn't trust Ralph Nadar with this country, sorry. I agree with alot of what he has to say, but he is no leader, and would effect no change. It'll be the people that effect change, and right now 95% of the people ain't doing jack.
count me as one of them if need by, I'm far more informed than most people I know, and reality and understanding what it'll take for change is a big part of the equation.
Stop by:
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=14678777351&ref=mf
I disagree, it very much was a mess 8 yrs ago. That's what lead to Bush being President, to Bush being able to abuse and ignore the constitution and rule of law. The corporations ruled back then as now, but the Bush administration took it to another level.
Stop by:
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=14678777351&ref=mf
So how is our presence going to stop the civil disputes that have been going on in Iraq for decades? When can we leave and they not keep right on killing? How are we going to fix this problem? When are the costs and the loss of our own troops going to be enough to say, 'okay we tried...it's not working' ? It's been 5 years!!! Where's the progress? And how do we know that this isn't just the newest excuse to maintain our occupation over there to line the pockets of defense contractors and war profiteers? We don't seem to concerned with murderous dictatorships we've installed elsewhere around the globe. We keep arming them, too...to keep killing one another. This looks like more of the same to me.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
So all the individual donars, new voters, independents and moderate republicans that have been supporting him mean nothing? He isn't a divisive figure like Hillary.
Clinton is only as close to him because of those in the Dem party that don't want Obama as president for fear of what he wouldn't do for them. yes he may not change to the scale needed, but their is no politician outside of Bush that is tied into the party faithful, the party croanies, the party deadbeats as Hillary Clinton.
When push comes to shove, they will all still vote for Obama anyway.
Stop by:
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=14678777351&ref=mf
We make our reality. We are not some powerless group of people who can't do any better. Anything less is a copout avoiding accountability.
Nader has a long history proving his leadership and ability to be effective. He has more accomplishments than the other 3 combined. and has did more for the american people, as well. He brought us the clean air act, the freedom of information act, took GM to task about their unsafe cars and brought us seat belts and air bags and much more...look it up. So say that he can't lead and be very effectual against great odds is ignoring the facts.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde