Mohammad of Vancouver is angered by Obama's decision to continue missile strikes at remote villages in Waziristan section of Pakistan:
Sorry to let everyone know, I am breaking my silence on Obama. I'm losing some of my hope on Obama. This acts reminds me too much that Bush's war on terror has not ended
and from now on it will be carried out by a black Democratic president
at least for another four years. Two days after promising Muslim world mutual respect, he is already approving missile attacks into Pakistan.
I guess the newest commander in chief couldn't wait longer to have
Mulsim blood on his hands. This is a sad and shameful development.
and from now on it will be carried out by a black Democratic president
at least for another four years. Two days after promising Muslim world mutual respect, he is already approving missile attacks into Pakistan.
I guess the newest commander in chief couldn't wait longer to have
Mulsim blood on his hands. This is a sad and shameful development.
The firing of missiles into Pakistan tacitly approves Israel's action
in Gaza. It reminds the world that powerful nations are allowed to
attack others if they feel it will benefit their strategy or their
security. Obama continues to
import Israeli attitude and mentality into his political decisions.
How can USA condemn Israel
when it uses the same kind of logic for aggressive wars? Twenty
people died of this latest secret CIA missile attack. How many of them
are civilians? What has Alqeida done lately against America to deserve
this kind of attacks? What is the new administration's goals? Is it to
engage Alqeida and encourage them militarily and to encourage them to
commit new terrorist attacks in USA? It does not seem logical for Obama
to send this kind of message into the Sunni Pakistani / Afghani people,
unless he really wants to signal the continuation of Bush's policies.
If Obama wants to fight Taliban in Afghanistan, then he should do that directly. If Obama wants to seal the southern borders of Afghanistan to prevent militants and arms from getting to Taliban, then he should do that from the Afghani side of the border and with the permission of the Afghani government.
in Gaza. It reminds the world that powerful nations are allowed to
attack others if they feel it will benefit their strategy or their
security. Obama continues to
import Israeli attitude and mentality into his political decisions.
How can USA condemn Israel
when it uses the same kind of logic for aggressive wars? Twenty
people died of this latest secret CIA missile attack. How many of them
are civilians? What has Alqeida done lately against America to deserve
this kind of attacks? What is the new administration's goals? Is it to
engage Alqeida and encourage them militarily and to encourage them to
commit new terrorist attacks in USA? It does not seem logical for Obama
to send this kind of message into the Sunni Pakistani / Afghani people,
unless he really wants to signal the continuation of Bush's policies.
If Obama wants to fight Taliban in Afghanistan, then he should do that directly. If Obama wants to seal the southern borders of Afghanistan to prevent militants and arms from getting to Taliban, then he should do that from the Afghani side of the border and with the permission of the Afghani government.
Doesn't he know that one cannot continue on the ill advised aggressive policies of George Bush under the banner of change? What are the new foreign policy team
of Obama hoping to get out of this? Is the answer the escalation of
Pakistani front into an Islamic uprising against the Zardari
government? What kind of message is Obama is sending to the world?
It reminds the world that powerful nations are allowed to attack others if they feel it will benefit their strategy or their security. Obama continues to import Israeli attitude and mentality into his political decisions.
This isn't an "Israeli attitude," the U.S. has been intervening militarily in other states for worse reasons than this since before Israel existed.
What has Alqeida done lately against America to deserve this kind of attacks? What is the new administration's goals? Is it to engage Alqeida and encourage them militarily and to encourage them to commit new terrorist attacks in USA?
There isn't a statute of limitations on murder. Morally, Al Qaeda still deserves to be destroyed. Practically, the objective of military action against it is to make sure it's not in a position to threaten the U.S. in the future, which they would still like to do and aren't going to stop wanting to do if the U.S. stops bombing them for a while. Maybe it won't work, I don't know.
If Obama wants to fight Taliban in Afghanistan, then he should do that directly. If Obama wants to seal the southern borders of Afghanistan to prevent militants and arms from getting to Taliban, then he should do that from the Afghani side of the border and with the permission of the Afghani government.
This would be impossible. At this point the Taliban in Pakistan is probably a bigger threat to the U.S. anyway (and the Pakistani government has probably secretly consented to attacks like this).
I differ from Mohammed in that I don't actually believe that Obama authorized any of this (at least not in advance).
The election of a president in the U.S. is like the appointment of a new CEO–the figurehead changes; the board remains the same.
Obama is under a lot of pressure in different ways and he's only been in office for half a week so I don't think we can judge him based on one event. I would imagine that a lot of decisions about previous policies are on hold right now because there's so much to do.
http://www.presstv.ir/Detail.aspx?id=83595§ionid=3510302
Shrub-Chaney changed the USA into a copy of Israel in terms of foreign policy–there is no more need to justify aggression, don't even need to trump up a pretext as it used to be.
Well exactly kyle. because Obama is under bad pressure, we NEED TO up the good pressure from the side of some of the very people that brought him to power, ie Bloggers, decent journalists and independent observers.
'Mohammad of Vancouver' has always seemed to me to be a bogus persona, intended to portray for some reason a cardboard-cutout stereotype of 'Muslim moderacy'. In this case, I would have to say, if he is only now "losing some of his hope on Obama", then he is not a 'moderate' but simply a moron.
Obama's administration may turn out to be the biggest con ever played on a populace. Virtually all of his appointments have been from business and industry and have taken strong positions in the past that are directly opposite of those that Obama preached when campaigning. The most recent was his appointment to a senior justice department post. As CNET writes:
For his vice president, Barack Obama chose Joe Biden, a senator with a long history of aiding the Recording Industry Association of America. Then Obama picked the RIAA's favorite lawyer, Tom Perrelli, for a top Justice Department post.
Now, as one of his first official actions as president, Obama has selected the Business Software Alliance's top antipiracy enforcer and general counsel, Neil MacBride, for a senior Justice Department post. Among other duties, MacBride has been responsible for the BSA's program that rewarded people for phoning in tips about suspected software piracy.
The elevation of RIAA and BSA lawyers must feel like a poke in the eye to the copyleft and progressive crowd, who spent over a year showering Obama with praise. Public Knowledge called Obama's election an "important" victory, while Free Press lauded it as "a sea change in leadership that allows us to go from playing defense to offense." Stanford professor Larry Lessig–probably the best known "free culture" proponent–went so far as to plead for all of his friends to "do something this time" by voting for Obama over his Republican rival.
BSA has opposed changes to the Digital Millennium Copyright Act's anti-circumvention section, once saying that legislation to allow backup copies of DVDs or video games would provide a "safe harbor for pirates who could easily claim that the 'intent' of their actions were legal." Early in the campaign, Obama told CNET News that he would support such a law, but hedged it by saying his support was "in concept" only. (He also claimed at the time to oppose retroactive immunity for telcos that illegally opened their networks to the National Security Agency, and we know how that turned out.)
Obama picks BSA's antipiracy enforcer for high-level post
Of course, the biggest joke has been Obama's "ending" the war. Justin Raimondo tackled this issue very well in his recent article on antiwar.com:
In the age of Obama, we're going to have to get used to the new zeitgeist in Washington, and in the media: the perpetual high moral dudgeon of contemporary liberalism. While the Bush administration had its own style of moralizing – the rhetoric of "liberation," the idea that we were doing the people of Iraq a favor by invading and occupying their country – the Obama crowd is much more sophisticated than that, and, simultaneously, more vulgar. On the one hand, they are all up in arms about torture, and the lawless treatment of the Guantanamo inmates, and on the other hand the prospect of a much wider "war on terrorism" – extending not only into Afghanistan and Pakistan, but the ring of 'stans that encircle the new battlefield, – doesn't seem to bother them in the least.
In his remarks to the U.S. State Department on Thursday, President Obama made it clear that our policy of relentless military aggression in the region, far from being over, has barely begun:
"Another urgent threat to global security is the deteriorating situation in Afghanistan and Pakistan. This is the central front in our enduring struggle against terrorism and extremism. There, as in the Middle East, we must understand that we cannot deal with our problems in isolation.
"There is no answer in Afghanistan that does not confront the Al Qaida and Taliban bases along the border, and there will be no lasting peace unless we expand spheres of opportunity for the people of Afghanistan and Pakistan. This is truly an international challenge of the highest order."
Ah yes, the "central front" in our eternal war against a shadowy and chameleon-like enemy – even the phraseology of the Bush years is intact!
This augurs ill for those who expect the President to make good on his campaign promise to get us out of Iraq. Well, the Obama-ites aver, he is getting ready for a "drawdown" in Iraq. The only problem is that we're simply redeploying many of those same forces to Afghanistan, while sending some home for a much-needed break. The antiwar movement's demand to bring our troops home is not being met – far from it.
What's happening is the inauguration of a new phase in the "war on terrorism" – a new front, or, rather, series of proliferating fronts, spread out all across the region, albeit centered in Afghanistan and the tribal areas of Pakistan.
The Liberals' Grand Bargain
We'll trade you Afghanistan and Pakistan for Guantanamo and torture – deal?
This is a classic piece of 'develop the savages' bullshit:
There will be no lasting peace unless we expand spheres of opportunity for the people of Afghanistan and Pakistan.