 blueridge says: Conclusions can be drawn from Obama's elitest foreign policy advisory team, comprised from Hillary and Bill Clinton's own. While condemning Bush's Iraq war, Obama will lead military interventionism into Africa, most likely, if you consider his top adviser's position, who has his ear like the neocons had Bush's ear. Africa will be the place for "regime change" under Obama, to fold it into the plan for world democracy which is driven by the elite. Susan Rice is Obama's Paul Wolfowitz. Dems and Repubs are both military interventionists. Obama like Hillary and McCain is a member of the CFR, the elites pushing global government. Hardly a sharp "change" is it, in direction? See the plan for AFRICOM, for which Obama is most suited to "sell" as needed, as part of the global elite's puzzle. Now if I was advising him, my advise would guarantee success!!! DO THE EXACT OPPOSITE TO WHAT BUSH DID!!! Foolproof. From his CFR page here: Sen. Obama (D-IL), whose father was Kenyan, has been particularly vocal in the Senate on U.S. Africa policy. He has been especially outspoken regarding policy toward Darfur (Sudan), traveling to the region with Sen. Sam Brownback (R-KS) in 2006. In May 2008, Obama cosigned a statement with fellow presidential candidates Hillary Clinton and John McCain condemning the Sudanese government as "chiefly responsible" for the violence in Darfur, and demanding that the Khartoum regime adhere to the Comprehensive Peace Agreement.and in regards to India too(a nuclear rival of Pakist... While I am certainly wary of interventionism, I think there is a world of difference between Bush's AFRICOM and Obama's interest in Darfur. Someone does need to come to the aid of people being destroyed by genocide. AFRICOM, like Iraq, is merely a tool for keeping the oil tap flowing for the benefit of the corporatocracy. Obama's interest in people who have strong feeling about Rwanda suggests a different motive. It may not be satisfying to the libertarian soul, and I'm not at all sure it is even to my own, but I don't think it is mere piracy, like Iraq. I am not libertarian, but highly skeptical whenever the corrupt US government, or UN, uses the word "genocide" and begins intervening, generally for other purposes. It is wise to evaluate facts from original sources other than the "summaries" provided to political parties or Congress written by professional propagandists usually intended to manipulate the US into war. Secondly, one should consider neighboring countries, whose first duty it would be to intervene, and surely have a more accurate understanding of the truth of what is going on. Morally, neighbors are more responsible for needed intervention, and also in a better position through proximity and culture to understand and interve... The truth is people that are labeled "democratic leaders" by media are often revolutionaries trying to overthrow their legitimate government (what Bush has advocated openly and the UN all want globally), which provokes governments duty to put down insurrections, even martial law, which is easily labeled "tyrannical". Democracy is revolutionary in nature, contrary to established governments, and contrary to even our Constitution which did not establish a democracy but a federation of sovereign states on representative principles, not majority rules. I certainly share your concerns and agree that neighbors should act first if they are able. And I freely admit that for America to intervene primarily for the rescue of the people themselves would be a radical realignment of American foreign policy - I'm not sure it's possible. I am most concerned about saving lives and minimizing suffering; I am most appalled by the American habit of plundering those we say we help. There is precious little evidence that American foreign policy is pro-democracy. Hamas was democratically elected - Bush took it down. Israel, our main protege in the region, is a one-religion state. And through the last 50 years - Iran, Guatemala, Iraq, Colombia, Panama, and many others - the democracies have been taken down and often replaced by dictatorships. Iran is among the most egregious, even getting a US-trained gestapo-like secret police force to stifle dissent in the '50s. |
View the Top Clips from July 18, 2008
Embed This Clip In Your Site...
|
|||||
|
|
||||||
|
New from the makers of Clipmarks: Amplify.com - Don't just share the news...Amplify it!
|
||||||
