Obama's Blood Lust

by Miriam Wed Jan 21, 2009 21:24

This article by Glen Ford, originally published in Black Agenda Report' makes it clear that some black Americans see him as potentially very dangerous - a politician with ambitious and maybe naive ideas for US foreign policy. Probably the most disturbing thing to read about is his alleged plan to wage war on Pakistan - something which Ford says will 'get us all incinerated'.

http://www.zmag.org/znet/viewArticle/14756

BAR's most recent report questions what Obama is likely to achieve for black people around the world, given his support for governments in places like Africa where civil populations continue to be horribly abused by corrupt regimes which are backed by the US out of naked self interest.

http://www.blackagendareport.com/

John Pilger has controversially called him 'a glossy Uncle Tom' -

"Nothing has changed. Barack Obama is a glossy Uncle Tom who would bomb Pakistan. Hillary Clinton, another bomber, is anti-feminist. John McCain's one distinction is that he has personally bombed a country. They all believe the US is not subject to the rules of human behaviour, because it is "a city upon a hill", regardless that most of humanity sees it as a monumental bully which, since 1945, has overthrown 50 governments, many of them democracies, and bombed 30 nations, destroying millions of lives."

http://www.newstatesman.com/north-america/2008/01/pilge...-webb

by Obama's Skeptical Supporter Wed Jan 21, 2009 21:27

'Obama does not have the unqualified support of Black America

Miriam, what race does Obama or any elected leader have 'unqualified support' from?

by Miriam Thu Jan 22, 2009 00:42

Nobody has unqualified support, true - I didnt properly express what I meant. Obama's blackness has been carefully exploited in this election to make it seem that a new era of egalitarianism has arrived wherein black people can expect to see a major lessening if not earadication of discrimination and economic disadvantage. No such promise has actually been made but it's implied. Almost certainly the fact that Obama is black will have a significance - there is bound to be a greater consciousness of discrimination and presumably wherever he does not have to rock powerful boats Obama will do what he can - but the caveat will seriously restrict him. He's not comitted to people, he's committed to business like all other US presidents. There is a lot of black opinion in the US that sees and knows this perfectly well, of course, more than is apparent from mainstream coverage of people who are rightly moved to see a black person become president after all they have had to put up with.

by Miriam Thu Jan 22, 2009 11:11

An early sign of Obama's duplicity is the great announcement that Guantanamo is to be closed - within 12 months.

There has been no definitive statement that the torture will end during that period. Prisoners will be removed to other facilities and no undertakings have been given about the nature of the legal redress they will have.

Torture and detention as usual, then, seems likely. We are going to have to get used to this.

http://www.uruknet.info/?p=m51084&hd=&size=1&l=e

by Obama's Skeptical Supporter Thu Jan 22, 2009 11:36

Miriam, if you had studied the GTMO issue, you would know that it was never really about the location of the gulag, but about the legal status of the people within it.

Yes, I agree a year is too long. But, as you imply, less than 48 hours and President Obama has not fixed all the problems in the world - shame on him for not living up to your expectations.

US Attorney David Iglesias says:
'Those terrorists that did commit acts will be brought to justice and those that did not, will be released.'
http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0109/Fired_US_At...owall

by I Love Barack Obama Thu Jan 22, 2009 11:41

Obama pledged to end torture of terrorists suspects and he is going to do that.
However the Al-Qaeda terrorist network must be defeated for all our sakes and Obama has pledge to continue the fight against the enemies of freedom.
Change has come to America.
Yes We Can.

by Rational Ecologist Thu Jan 22, 2009 12:28

Obama is President of the USA and not of America. Brazil, Canada and so on have their own Governments. I think the use of America to describe what is the US is interesting and instructive. A sort of linguistic colonialism, if you like. Please consult your maps. America is the continent, the USA is the country, of which Obama is President.
A wee bit pedantic , I know but it does annoy me so.
' Change has come to America ( US ) ' -PLEASE EXPLAIN.
' Yes we can ' EXPLAIN.
Obama is a brand and has been sold like one.
I long to be proven wrong!

by Rational Ecologist Thu Jan 22, 2009 15:21

There are a numbers of conventions,as you should know from your references, however, you are missing the point, that describing Obama as president of America is a falsehood. I'd leave it at that and agree to disagree on the numbers of continents, lest we induce global boredom.
I am more interested in looking at the language as an indicator of attitudes.
Obama has said that the US is ready to lead, again. No thanks Barrack, we'll be fine. Stick to where you were elected and the world will be a better place. Don't give me this " smart power " nonsense.
Thanks for your contributions. It seems I am not the only pedant.

by Miriam Thu Jan 22, 2009 16:11

John Pilger's latest article

"The supply of American weapons used in the massacres was authorised previously by such a margin. These included the Hellfire missile, which sucks the air out of lungs, ruptures livers and amputates arms and legs without the necessity of shrapnel: a "major advance", according to the specialist literature. As a senator, the then President-elect Obama raised no objection to these state-of-the-art [sic] weapons being rushed to Israel - worth $22bn in 2008 - in time for the long-planned assault on Gaza's fenced and helpless population. This is ­understandable; it is how the system works. On no other issue does Congress and the president, Republicans or Democrats, conservatives or liberals, give such absolute support. By comparison, the ­German Reichstag in the 1930s was a treasure of ­democratic and principled debate."

http://www.newstatesman.com/middle-east/2009/01/israel-...-bush

by Miriam Fri Jan 23, 2009 21:19

Within 24 hours of appointing Richard Holbrooke as envoy to Afghanistan and Pakistan, Obama's aggression towards Pakistan is realised:

http://english.aljazeera.net/news/asia/2009/01/20091231....html

by Obama's Skeptical Supporter Sat Jan 24, 2009 08:50

{Obama Era - Day 4}

Obama is president now - he is responsible for this slaughter but that doesn't mean he ordered it.

Miriam wants to paint Obama as a blood thirsty man. It is quite likely that most things in his power are on auto-pilot and he has not tried to change yet.

When he send the additional 30,000 troops to Afghanistan, then he will 'own' it.

by Mark C - Contact.ie Sat Jan 24, 2009 09:50

Here's an article by John Pilger that I've begun using in my media studies classes about Blair and Obama, in which Pilger says of Obama:

"In the New York Times on 14 July, in an article spun to appear as if he is ending the war in Iraq, Obama demanded more war in Afghanistan and, in effect, an invasion of Pakistan. He wants more combat troops, more helicopters, more bombs. Bush may be on his way out, but the Republicans have built an ideological machine that transcends the loss of electoral power – because their collaborators are, as the American writer Mike Whitney put it succinctly, "bait-and-switch" Democrats, of whom Obama is the prince.

Those who write of Obama that "when it comes to international affairs, he will be a huge improvement on Bush" demonstrate the same wilful naivety that backed the bait-and-switch of Bill Clinton – and Tony Blair. Of Blair, wrote the late Hugo Young in 1997, "ideology has surrendered entirely to ‘values’... there are no sacred cows [and] no fossilised limits to the ground over which the mind might range in search of a better Britain...".

Eleven years and five wars later, at least a million people lie dead. Barack Obama is the American Blair. That he is a smooth operator and a black man is irrelevant. He is of an enduring, rampant system whose drum majors and cheer squads never see, or want to see, the consequences of 500lb bombs dropped unerringly on mud, stone and straw houses."

by dunk Sat Jan 24, 2009 11:26

I agree, Obama has landed into this, and it will take time to change things. We must remember how fucked up Bush has left things, perhaps purposefully to discredit Obama and take the wind from his sail in the first few days. As Cornel West stated: At this moment, the best America could do was Brother Barack Obama. I think we have to criticise where necessary, but also be creative and look at ways to assist Obama bring about change.

I think if you look at the driving forces of the 2 presidents, you can see clear differences:
Obama, a normal enough upbringing, mixed origins etc, doing something for not just himself, but his family, people, blacks, browns, yellows, gays....
Bush, just trying (unsuccessfully with horific effects) to be Daddy´s little cowboy. Coming from a long family line whose main purpose in life was to take power, rob and get rich of it. Remember in, i think it was 1942, the US state had to legally intervene and force his Gran'daddy and co to stop selling steel to the nazis....And he had the gaule to visit auschwitz, cabron! Uuuffffff, I could go on..
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2004/sep/25/usa.secondw...ldwar

Obama is a huge step in a better direction

Perhaps people power can change things, its the only thing that can. So, criticise and educate where necessary, but, be positive, be hopeful that things can change.

From Democracy Now: Noam Chomsky: Obama’s Stance on Gaza Crisis “Approximately the Bush Position”

In a visit to the State Department Thursday, President Obama made his first substantive comments on the Middle East conflict since Israel’s attack on Gaza. Obama first mentioned his commitment to Israel’s security, without affirming his commitment to Palestinian security. He condemned Palestinian rocket attacks on southern Israeli towns, but didn’t criticize the US-backed Israeli bombings of densely populated Gaza. But in a departure from the Bush administration, Obama acknowledged Palestinian suffering and said Gaza’s borders should be opened to aid.

We speak with MIT professor, Noam Chomsky.

Noam Chomsky: Obama’s Stance on Gaza Crisis “Approximately the Bush Position”
http://www.democracynow.org/2009/1/23/noam_chomsky_obam..._gaza

Related post regarding the role we play in this:
Let freedom ring, Let freedom ring, Let freedom ring...MLK`s dream and beyond
http://www.indymedia.ie/article/90745&comment_limit=0&c...43973

by Centreleft Sat Jan 24, 2009 14:40

The article shows nothing frightening up. He's barely taken office and you pounce on an order, the substance of which seems to be 'teach our armed forces to speak different languages'. Outline your objection to this.

Also, why are people still quoting John Pilger? I stopped listening to him in 2004 when he said anti war activists should support 'the resistance' in Iraq. He's a disgusting apologist for the worst forms of bigotry, racism and religious extremism who called Obama an uncle tom. Clearly a black man who happens to not be as right on as Pilger when it comes to support for third world fascist 'resistance' movements must be serving his white paymasters. What a disgrace to the left.

Obama, i think, will be a good president. Or, hey, maybe he wont. Just stop pouncing on everything he says, desperately searching for something scary.