OBAMA Speech in Cairo was a 10+ AMAZING !!!

redrum said:
i will be surprised if you still maintain your current mode of thinking. I look forward to your feedback. Pass along to anybody that is interested.

Seen, unimpressed.

My main annoyance is that weaved into the paranoia and the need to simplify things there's some truths in there. There's enough decent material in there to have a completely different documentary, but they tell the story they want to, instead of the story thats there.

There are better documentaries out there. Adam Curtis is a great documentary film maker, but the stuff he puts out is tight and credible.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adam_Curtis
 
I've underestimated Obama all along, underestimated his probity, his guts, and his resolve. And what has convinced me of the errors of my ways was this article here by Alex Cockburn.
 
From the article...

[SIZE=-1]We can take it as an absolute certainly that CIA and Pentagon advisors were at the elbows of the Honduran plotters, giving the green light and barely bothering to maintain deniability, and that Obama and Mrs Clinton had been fully briefed.[/SIZE]

We can? With absolute certainty?
 
jp said:
From the article...

We can? With absolute certainty?

Yep, the White House admitted it had been "in contact" with the people behind the coup before it occurred. And even without this admission, no reactionary coup like this has occurred without permission from the yanqui overlords for perhaps a century. Central America belongs to the USA (though South America has spun out of orbit).
 
There's a world of difference between "being in contact" and "being at the elbows of the plotters, giving the green light".

Its specualtion. Not saying it isn't the case, but its still speculation, and there's no way on God's green earth the author can claim that it happened with "absolute certainty".

There's plenty of real, obervable and documented failures on obama's part. Campaigning on a platform of "rule of law" then doing a feeble 180 on torture was pretty unforgivable. Why not criticise him for the things he's actually doing, instead of things people imagine him to be doing?

Thats what I don't get about the rabid anti-obama movement. They doomed him before he opened his mouth. He was destined to fail, incapable of doing anything before he even started. There's just no objectivity, and it undermines real criticism of him, when he's relentlessly criticised for anything and everything. It also blinds critics to any potentail achievements he may make. It is possible that the president of the united states may achieve something positive....
 
jp said:
There's plenty of real, obervable and documented failures on obama's part. Campaigning on a platform of "rule of law" then doing a feeble 180 on torture was pretty unforgivable. Why not criticise him for the things he's actually doing, instead of things people imagine him to be doing?

I posted this Honduras business on the thread not to criticise Obama but to point out he's going to be no different to his predecessors. US foreign policy in Central America is not changing under Obama as it's not changing in Afghanistan.

Thats what I don't get about the rabid anti-obama movement. They doomed him before he opened his mouth. He was destined to fail, incapable of doing anything before he even started. There's just no objectivity, and it undermines real criticism of him, when he's relentlessly criticised for anything and everything. It also blinds critics to any potentail achievements he may make. It is possible that the president of the united states may achieve something positive....

It's not about Obama. It's strictly business, nothing personal. Obama is just another figurehead, who for electoral purposes masqueraded briefly as an "agent of change" and a crusader of hope. To criticise Obama would be just as futile and asinine as criticism of Bush. It's not about individuals -- they are puppets and figureheads. It's about an ossified political system that is resistant to change. The criticism is directed more at all those Obama supporters who keep cutting slack for the present administration, and being apologists for its actions and deniers of unfolding reality. And the reality is Obama is almost the same as Bush. On foreign and military policy; on torture; on economic policy. The failure is not so much that of an individual (Obama), as that of a corrupt and ossified political system which keeps giving us these bozos and clowns as fraudulent agents of real change. Utter imposters.

Let's see if he achieves anything on healthcare. I doubt it. Or maybe on financial regulation. Again, I doubt it.
 
I think its far from a given that the US would have gone to war in afghanistan and Iraq if the Bush administation hadn't been so hell bent on invading. I also thinks its far from likely the UK would have followed if it wasn't for the zeal of Tony Blair.

Obama isn't going to single handedly pull the US out of the doldrums, but thats not to say he doesn't have influence.
 
jp said:
I think its far from a given that the US would have gone to war in afghanistan and Iraq if the Bush administation hadn't been so hell bent on invading. I also thinks its far from likely the UK would have followed if it wasn't for the zeal of Tony Blair.

Obama isn't going to single handedly pull the US out of the doldrums, but thats not to say he doesn't have influence.


There is no will from Obama and the war machine to change the status quo in the World . All these nice speeches carefully prepared by his top advisors are designed to fool and appease the gullible amongst us.

Wars are increasing in the world, tensions are rising and diplomacy is non existent.

As stated before we are close to over 180 days in office and there is absolutely no difference in the foreign policies with rising tensions in Pakistan, Afganistan, Iran, Honduras, North Korea etc etc.

The American government has virtually stopped credit to all but a few while giving trillions to banks for the above purpose of helping small businesses. There is rising poverty and unemployment the likes that the USA has not seen since the great depression.

Where are the positive changes ?
 
I would be very suprised if an obama admistration sanctioned military action against Iran, North Korea or any other troublesome state. The rhetoric has already shifted away from "evil" and "evildoers".

I might be horribly disappointed. I was with Tony Blair (I'm a brit), we had our own obama moment 12 years ago when an idealistic, optimistic young liberal stormed the elections and ended a miserable decade of tory governance. And 12 years later... we seem to have ended up with a repressive police state and we're mired in two wars. Didn't see that coming.

Are wars really increasing? After the fairly disasterous excursions in afghanistan and Iraq, government and the general public seem to have lost their appetite for invading far away lands.

Positive changes... well, I was pleased to see India decrimanlise homosexuality this week. As much as people focus on a historical backdrop of war, violence and oppression, its encouraging to remember that socially we've come along way in terms of learning to accept other ways of life, and enshrining those rights in law. The worst excesses of the last 100 years shouldn't overshadow the fact that we've seen universal suffrage, civil rights, and huge advances in sexual equality and tolerance of culture and individual difference.

So to bring it full circle back to the cairo speech that started this discussion - I thought it was a speech to be proud of. Promoting tolerance and understanding isn't something to dismiss so easily. It matters.
 
jp said:
Are wars really increasing? After the fairly disasterous excursions in afghanistan and Iraq, government and the general public seem to have lost their appetite for invading far away lands.

The state still has its appetite for foreign conflicts. And tensions and wars are set to increase as tussles for the world's remaining resources (e.g., oil and gas) increase. That's what the US presence in the Middle East is all about. It's strictly business. The public can go to hell -- it can be appeased, deceived, and galvanised into war hysteria as occasion requires. Back in 2003, Bush managed to convince the US public that Saddam and Osama were cohabiting

So to bring it full circle back to the cairo speech that started this discussion - I thought it was a speech to be proud of. Promoting tolerance and understanding isn't something to dismiss so easily. It matters.

It pleases you to jest with us. A callow and opportunistic politician with the gift of the gab and a willingness to accommodate himself to the realities of power is not going to change anything. Obama is the US version of Phony Tony.
 
Back
Top