It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Obession with Obama.
page: 11
share:
I had originally written this earlier today on an other forum I venture and decided that perhaps it would do justice to discourse it here as well. I
had a large degree of frustration when I wrote it, and referenced some Obama speeches to further amplify my point.
It's been a long time since I've participated in any sort of healthy discussions with my fellow ATSers.
"Is anyone going to discuss the specificity of Obama's policies which are a "change into the right direction" or is everyone going to reiterate what the media and his campaign have been telling us for the last year and discourse the meaningless structure of his campaign? Is Obama's candidacy based upon his campaign ethics?
Let's start with this foreign policy. You say it's a step in the right direction. How so? Is Obama suggesting that the United States subvert its obsession with global hegemony and start an era wherein a Pax Americana is not enforced by its valorous military might?
He wants to engage the Iranians in direct, unconditional talks, while labeling them as a dangerous and rouge regime, yet refuses to acknowledge that the "Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons" clearly gives Iranians the right to their nuclear activity and the IAEA along with Russian authorities has debased this on a number of basis. This doesn't sound like a change in direction to me; it sounds as if he's encouraging the false information that has Russian and French officials declaring that the United States and Israel will attack high profile Iranian targets within the year. How does Obama hope to sit down in talks with Iran knowing very well that this country is being accused, falsely, of acquiring nuclear weapons technology, sanctioned for this (causing only more ill feelings in that part of the world due to the economic ramifications sanctions bring -the sanctions (oil for food program) imposed on Iraq led to the consequential death of over 500,000 children, a million civilians in total), repeatedly threatened by Naval exercises in the Persian Gulf, having it's leader's words misinterpreted to justify the Israeli fears of nuclear attacks? Why doesn't Obama clear up the false allegations, educate his followers on the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons and its specific articles that relate to Iran, and more importantly, how the United States itself adheres less and less to this?
If Obama is against war, as he saw fit to state post Iraq war, then why does he suggest further military intervention in Afghanistan and potentially attacking Pakistani targets (an act of war) based up so called actionable intelligence? Obama's type-cast is one polar to the Bush administration, specifically unilateralism in foreign affairs, but does this necessarily diverge from the Bush doctrine of preemptive war, does he ever suggest consulting the United Nations Security Council or has he dropped this entirely as the only, healthy solution, and exactly what does he mean when he states: no president should ever hesitate to use force -- unilaterally if necessary," not only "to protect ourselves . . . when we are attacked," but also to protect "our vital interests" when they are "imminently threatened."? What are vital interests? The same economic interests that have historically led to U.S military intervention the world over? And doesn't "imminently threatened" sounds more along the lines of preemptive defense? In fact, not only does he sound like a more merrily version of Bush, he imparts the same ridiculous notion that "the ability to put boots on the ground will be critical in eliminating the shadowy terrorist networks we now face. This is a change in the right direction? He also plans to "stay on the offense, from Djibouti to Kandahar," by adding 65,00 more troops to the army and recruiting 27,000 more marines. How is this different than the war drums beaten by the Bush Administration? And does anyone question where the finances for Obamas ideal world will come from?
And what of his support of Israel's oppressive policies which have factually fostered an atmosphere of violent reactions, terrorism and a highly marginalized society rooted in abject poverty, roaring unemployment and a refugee status unprecedented? Does any one of Obama's followers as him to scrutinize Israel?
Anyways, I'm just a Canadian, right, so presumably I shouldn't violence my mind with the thought of electing another leader to the Executive office that will more than likely pacify the American people, and the world, while engaging in the very same, if not appreciable, war policies of the Bush Administration."
Luxifero
[edit on 18-10-2008 by Luxifero]
It's been a long time since I've participated in any sort of healthy discussions with my fellow ATSers.
"Is anyone going to discuss the specificity of Obama's policies which are a "change into the right direction" or is everyone going to reiterate what the media and his campaign have been telling us for the last year and discourse the meaningless structure of his campaign? Is Obama's candidacy based upon his campaign ethics?
Let's start with this foreign policy. You say it's a step in the right direction. How so? Is Obama suggesting that the United States subvert its obsession with global hegemony and start an era wherein a Pax Americana is not enforced by its valorous military might?
He wants to engage the Iranians in direct, unconditional talks, while labeling them as a dangerous and rouge regime, yet refuses to acknowledge that the "Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons" clearly gives Iranians the right to their nuclear activity and the IAEA along with Russian authorities has debased this on a number of basis. This doesn't sound like a change in direction to me; it sounds as if he's encouraging the false information that has Russian and French officials declaring that the United States and Israel will attack high profile Iranian targets within the year. How does Obama hope to sit down in talks with Iran knowing very well that this country is being accused, falsely, of acquiring nuclear weapons technology, sanctioned for this (causing only more ill feelings in that part of the world due to the economic ramifications sanctions bring -the sanctions (oil for food program) imposed on Iraq led to the consequential death of over 500,000 children, a million civilians in total), repeatedly threatened by Naval exercises in the Persian Gulf, having it's leader's words misinterpreted to justify the Israeli fears of nuclear attacks? Why doesn't Obama clear up the false allegations, educate his followers on the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons and its specific articles that relate to Iran, and more importantly, how the United States itself adheres less and less to this?
If Obama is against war, as he saw fit to state post Iraq war, then why does he suggest further military intervention in Afghanistan and potentially attacking Pakistani targets (an act of war) based up so called actionable intelligence? Obama's type-cast is one polar to the Bush administration, specifically unilateralism in foreign affairs, but does this necessarily diverge from the Bush doctrine of preemptive war, does he ever suggest consulting the United Nations Security Council or has he dropped this entirely as the only, healthy solution, and exactly what does he mean when he states: no president should ever hesitate to use force -- unilaterally if necessary," not only "to protect ourselves . . . when we are attacked," but also to protect "our vital interests" when they are "imminently threatened."? What are vital interests? The same economic interests that have historically led to U.S military intervention the world over? And doesn't "imminently threatened" sounds more along the lines of preemptive defense? In fact, not only does he sound like a more merrily version of Bush, he imparts the same ridiculous notion that "the ability to put boots on the ground will be critical in eliminating the shadowy terrorist networks we now face. This is a change in the right direction? He also plans to "stay on the offense, from Djibouti to Kandahar," by adding 65,00 more troops to the army and recruiting 27,000 more marines. How is this different than the war drums beaten by the Bush Administration? And does anyone question where the finances for Obamas ideal world will come from?
And what of his support of Israel's oppressive policies which have factually fostered an atmosphere of violent reactions, terrorism and a highly marginalized society rooted in abject poverty, roaring unemployment and a refugee status unprecedented? Does any one of Obama's followers as him to scrutinize Israel?
Anyways, I'm just a Canadian, right, so presumably I shouldn't violence my mind with the thought of electing another leader to the Executive office that will more than likely pacify the American people, and the world, while engaging in the very same, if not appreciable, war policies of the Bush Administration."
Luxifero
[edit on 18-10-2008 by Luxifero]
new topics
1