Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,808 Year: 3,065/9,624 Month: 910/1,588 Week: 93/223 Day: 4/17 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Obama is full of it
onifre
Member (Idle past 2950 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 31 of 119 (528895)
10-07-2009 12:21 PM
Reply to: Message 29 by jacortina
10-07-2009 10:09 AM


The media is full of it, too...
Hi jacortina,
There's simply no question whatsoever that the whole idea and the whole impetus behind the thing was Little Richie Daley, wanting one BIG thing to outdo his old man.
Nevertheless, Obama should not have promoted the games in Chicago given the disastrous impact those games would have caused the city and it's residents to endure.
Here are some quotes from an article on: zmag.org
quote:
President Barack Obama is now en route to Copenhagen in an effort to sell Chicago as the site of the 2016 Summer Olympics. In the process, he may be selling Chicago down the river. Obama is joined arm-in-arm with his wife Michelle on one side and Mayor Richard Daley's Chicago political machine on the other.
(adding)
Michelle Obama should perhaps realize that if the Olympics had come to Chicago when she was a young girl on Chicago's working class south side, her home may have been torn down to make way for an Olympic facility. No word on how being out of house and home would have helped her disabled father.
(further)
This is why a staggering 84 percent of the city opposes bringing the Games to Chicago if it costs residents a solitary dime. Even if the games were to go off without a hitch - which would happen only if the setting was lovely Shangri-La - not even half the residents would support hosting the Games.
The Obamas, former Chicago residents, should be standing with their city. Instead, we have the sight of Barack, Michelle, and Oprah trying to outmuscle Pele and Brazil for a place at the Olympic trough. The question is why. Maybe Obama wants the Olympic fairy dust enjoyed by Ronald Reagan at the 1984 Olympics in Los Angeles or Bill Clinton at the 1996 games in Atlanta. Or perhaps he is returning favor to the developers and other sundry connected people in the Windy City who will make out like bandits once the smoke has cleared. But his intentions are clear: he wants the glitz, glamour, and prestige of the games and he wants it for the Daley machine. What the people of Chicago want doesn't seem to compute.
(finally)
There is an urgency to building resistance to these kinds of priorities. Right now, the right wing is shamelessly adopting populist rhetoric and the power of protest to sell an agenda of racism and fear wrapped in taxpayer protection. The big public voice against Obama's trip to Copenhagen has been the repellent RNC chief Michael Steele who believes, and this is hilarious, that "At a time of war and recession" Obama needs to stay home. It shouldn't be a scoundrel like Steele who represents a party of privatization and occupation who delivers that message. Now is the time to build a pole of attraction on the left for people furious at corporate greed amidst a recession. This needs to happen, and not just for the Windy City. It's about building a vibrant protest movement that believes in social justice not the rank divisiveness of the right. Obama likes to say that change comes from "outside Washington." It's time to take him at his word.
Whether it's for prestige (like Reagan and Clinton), whether it's to return a favor to connected people in Chicago who helped him, whether it's to support the Daley machine... the fact is that the city and it's residents would have suffered the most AND THAT should have been the biggest concern of both Obama and the party that opposes him.
But instead, the media (both left and right) focused on the corruption rather than on the people who will actually suffer the most. They lost focus on what would really hurt if the games came to Chicago and instead used it as an opportunity to endorse their agenda. They used it as an excuse to promote hate toward Obama and the Democratic party, but only to make way for their party of interest, and not because they were trully concerned.
Typical media misinformation coupled with propaganda for an equally corrupt party.
What about the impact those games would have had on the city and it's residents? Shouldn't Obama have been concerned with that?
- Oni

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by jacortina, posted 10-07-2009 10:09 AM jacortina has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by jacortina, posted 10-07-2009 12:38 PM onifre has replied

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 2950 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


(1)
Message 33 of 119 (528912)
10-07-2009 1:29 PM
Reply to: Message 32 by jacortina
10-07-2009 12:38 PM


Re: The media is full of it, too...
Chicago was going to push for it, no matter what Obama did or didn't do to help (there is NO Republican Party to speak of in Chicago and not much more of one in Illinois as a whole). Had he done nothing, he would have been vilified for 'not supporting America'.
That is a fair point to consider. As president, his support of a US bidding is almost a mandatory thing. And I agree that the decision for Chicago was done long before Obama's campaign for presidency.
It was the same when the games were in Los Angeles and Reagan was president. His connections to LA were no secert (having been an actor) so one could apply the same ignorance that others are appling to Obama and say that Reagans support of the LA games was to benefit his connections. Which is technically right, but not in the sense that people make it to seem.
However, when a city and it's residents stand to lose so much, perhaps the approach Obama should have taken (and I say this recognizing that my opinion is of little value in the matter) should have been to point out the negative effects the games would have had on the city, but endores the bidding as any other president would have.
Even though, IMO, the negative effects, especially during a struggling economy, should have outweighed the tradition of bidding for the Olympic games. Interestingly enough, I think such a stance would have made him look better than supporting the games. It would have shown people (even if it was illusionary) that his concerns are for the welfare of the people, and not for the interests of the powerful corporations that stood to gain the most from the games.
Fact is, the games really only benefit a small minority of powerful corporations (media, advertisers, corporate affiliates, etc.) financially. But since the presidents has always been members of the elite class of society (with connections to all these major interest groups), it makes sense to support their own ilk... regardless of the impact it has on the people.
- Oni

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by jacortina, posted 10-07-2009 12:38 PM jacortina has not replied

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 2950 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


(1)
Message 35 of 119 (528914)
10-07-2009 1:41 PM
Reply to: Message 34 by riVeRraT
10-07-2009 1:31 PM


I stick by my initial statement, in saying if that was Bush, it would have been portrayed by the liberal media completely differently. Just like they did with the whole oil issue. Bush owns oil, so it must be his fault approach.
While I agree that the "liberal" media (*which is an oxymoron) would have spun things the other way had Bush done something similar, the current spin from the right-wing media is only to gain momentum for their party of interest - which is as corrupt as the current party.
In either case, the people get screwed due to political jockeying for control and power.
* All media in this country is owned by a major corporations, and the affiliations to the different parties (Dem - Rep) is used as a tool for propaganda and to push specific agendas.
- Oni

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by riVeRraT, posted 10-07-2009 1:31 PM riVeRraT has not replied

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 2950 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 37 of 119 (528994)
10-07-2009 6:28 PM
Reply to: Message 36 by riVeRraT
10-07-2009 5:52 PM


And oh, it took 4 months to pick a dog.
- That was funny!
I am still waiting patiently for things to get better, after all it took 8 years to screw it all up right??
I wouldn't wait for the government to do this; we need to make things right for ourselves. McCain would have shit the bed as well.
- Oni

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by riVeRraT, posted 10-07-2009 5:52 PM riVeRraT has not replied

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 2950 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 44 of 119 (529165)
10-08-2009 1:32 PM
Reply to: Message 42 by riVeRraT
10-08-2009 11:00 AM


Our current economic status is completely the American public's fault.
Completely the American public's fault? Hmm, that's interesting.
How so? Can you be specific?
A reason for socialist countries to say "see look, it doesn't work".
Capitalism doesn't work.
- Oni

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by riVeRraT, posted 10-08-2009 11:00 AM riVeRraT has not replied

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 2950 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 45 of 119 (529169)
10-08-2009 1:49 PM
Reply to: Message 43 by Izanagi
10-08-2009 11:08 AM


We can speculate, certainly, but we cannot determine for a certainty because Chicago did not get the bid.
The one downside to bidding for the Olympics, IMO, is that during such hard economic times, the money spent by Chicago bidding for the Olympics could have been used directly to help the city.
The bid cost Chicago 48.2 million. A bid the lost, mind you. That money could have been used directly to help the people of that city (public housing, schools, healthcare, etc.).
Instead, it was used to bid for games which would have huge financial gain for developers, etc., and done nothing for the people themselves.
source
quote:
No Games Chicago organizer Alison McKenna said to me, "I oppose the Olympics coming to Chicago because instead of putting money toward what people really need, money will be funneled to real estate developers who will be tearing down Washington Park and other important community resources. I oppose the Olympics coming to Chicago because the nonprofit child-welfare agency that I work for had to sustain budget cuts and layoffs, while Chicago has spent $48.2 million on the 2016 Olympic bid, as of July 2009."
So if in fact, the games were supposed to "help the people of Chicago," then why not just invest the almost 50 million directly into the system and avoid the HUGE possibility of not winning the bid?
IMO, the games were not to benefit "the people," they were to benefit the elite Chicago business folk.
48.2 million wasted on a bid, while the poor less fortunate in Chicago stay wanting. Obama had nothing to do with the original bid for the games, but he could have stepped up and gave his concerns for the money wasted.
- Oni

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by Izanagi, posted 10-08-2009 11:08 AM Izanagi has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 48 by Minnemooseus, posted 10-08-2009 3:03 PM onifre has replied
 Message 49 by dronestar, posted 10-08-2009 3:48 PM onifre has replied

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 2950 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 58 of 119 (529288)
10-08-2009 6:30 PM
Reply to: Message 48 by Minnemooseus
10-08-2009 3:03 PM


Re: How in the hell to you spend $48.2 M on a bid?
I don't know what they were doing, but such frivolous overkill would have a negative impression on me, if I was on the receiving end of the "bid".
Same here. And we're not alone.
Here's an article if you'd like to check it out, from ESPN Chicago, a mainstream news source, reporting the same thing.
quote:
Same thing goes for the Olympics. The IOC provides the product (the copyrighted Olympic rings, the athletes and the cachet) and in return, cities spend tens of millions on the bid process and billions on the infrastructure, facilities, transportation and security for the Games themselves. The Chicago bid cost an astounding $48 million plus, and the price tag for the operating budget is an estimated (emphasis on estimated) $3.8 billion and another $1 billion (estimated) on construction.
Nobody asked if we actually wanted the Olympics here. They just did it, just as the Chicago City Council decided recently to guarantee any financial shortfalls. Chicago Olympic committee officials insist there will be no shortfalls, that the City Council's vote simply eases the minds of IOC members, that the last three U.S.-based Olympics (Los Angeles, Atlanta and Salt Lake City) finished with financial surpluses. Then again, what do you expect organizers to say? That cost overruns are likely? That the budget for the 2012 Games in London has nearly tripled from the original estimates?
- Oni

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by Minnemooseus, posted 10-08-2009 3:03 PM Minnemooseus has not replied

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 2950 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


(1)
Message 59 of 119 (529310)
10-08-2009 8:29 PM
Reply to: Message 49 by dronestar
10-08-2009 3:48 PM


Hi Dronester,
In a time of economic recession and health care crisis, this war is costing $2 billion EACH MONTH. Obama is not ending the Afghan war, he is ESCALATING it. Obama went ahead and boosted U.S. troop levels in Afghanistan by 17,000 this past Spring. An additional 40,000 troops will now be added. With undoubtedly more in the future when this surge also doesn't change things (Vietnam anyone?). Both Dem and Repub Administrations know that the art of "escalation of war mongering" needs to be done quietly and incrementally or an apathetic public just may react.
The part that continues to bother me, is that no one is paying any attention to what the Afghan people want!
This is baffling. It's a lot about US and British concerns, and it's obvious in both Obama's and Brown's speeches on the subject. Neither of them ends their talks with, "Oh yea, and the Afghan people don't fuck'n want us there." That, and that alone, is reason to get the hell out of there.
But you're right, it is war mongering, and done very under the radar with promises that it would be a more meritorious war in Afghanistan. Lies, and more lies. And all the while, the people in Afghanistan want us out. So much so, that they are now willing to negotiate with the Taliban and to creation of a coalition government that will include the Taliban leadership. So what's the fucking point of staying in there?
source
quote:
Despite all this, a solid 64% of Afghans thought 'the government in Kabul should negotiate a settlement with Afghan Taliban in which they are allowed to hold political offices if they agree to stop fighting'. However, Afghans favoured preconditions to such talks: 71% said the government should 'negotiate only if the Taliban stop fighting'.
64% of British people also think 'America and Britain be willing to talk to the Taliban in Afghanistan in order to achieve a peace deal'. (Sunday Times, 15 March 2009)
Talks are only meaningful if the other side is willing to play their part. It seems, in the case of Afghanistan, that there is serious interest in a national reconciliation process on the part of the Taliban and the Karzai administration - but that these negotiations are being blocked by the United States and Britain, who are determined to achieve a military victory.

Why though? Why are they determined to "acheive military victory" when the people, the civilians of that country, have stated what they want?
This is an example of war mongering at it's finest, further continued now by the Obama Admin.
I said before, Obama is gonna keep to a muddled strategy with continuing civilian deaths that will only create more terrorists against Amerika. Who STILL disagrees with this?
To the point that they have now given one of the terrorist organization that the US set out to destroy a seat on the new Afghan government.
Shall we pause for an applause break now?
- Oni
Lastly, Oni, NYC is a bit far from Buffalo. Ever do shows in Toronto? I love Toronto. Certainly the best thing about living in Buffalo is that TO is just an hour or two drive away.
I do make it to Canada ever now and again, not TO, but close. When I do I will definitely hit you up!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by dronestar, posted 10-08-2009 3:48 PM dronestar has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 70 by riVeRraT, posted 10-09-2009 3:14 PM onifre has replied

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 2950 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 60 of 119 (529323)
10-08-2009 9:51 PM
Reply to: Message 42 by riVeRraT
10-08-2009 11:00 AM


A reason for socialist countries to say "see look, it doesn't work".
Ah there's that scary word. Americans should freak out when they hear "socialism"!
You like presenting videos, check out this one.
- Oni

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by riVeRraT, posted 10-08-2009 11:00 AM riVeRraT has not replied

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 2950 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 68 of 119 (529457)
10-09-2009 11:57 AM
Reply to: Message 65 by Hyroglyphx
10-09-2009 10:52 AM


Re: OMG! Obama said the sky would be blue!!!1!
Hi Hyro,
Why then is it morally acceptable when Obama does it, but not Bush?
I don't think anyone has said that it's morally OK for Obama to do it. Not to defend Obama, but I don't think he ordered the bombing of Pakistan since they started before he took office (in fact, it started way back in 2006 - as far as I've been able to research it). Sure, it's under his watch NOW, but it's not comparable to the invasion of Iraq by US military forces, and equally in Afghanistan, ordered directly by Bush Jr. himself.
but not a peep for Obama who has taken up his mantle.
There have been many protesters, but, currently we are in a pro-US politics media frenzy so it wouldn't be good for US foreign policy to show anti-Obama campaigns. Likewise, what the right-wing media is doing with their exaggerated stories is not helping either, because then it becomes a finger pointing argument, and nothing gets accomplished.
- Oni

This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by Hyroglyphx, posted 10-09-2009 10:52 AM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 2950 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 73 of 119 (529498)
10-09-2009 4:02 PM
Reply to: Message 70 by riVeRraT
10-09-2009 3:14 PM


all I have to go by is what we see on TV
And let me stop you right there.
I will answer your post in more detail in a few hours, but for now just take a look at the actual polls from Kabul, Afghan:
source
quote:
These are the results of a nationwide poll commissioned by the BBC, ABC News (USA) and ARD (Germany), in which 1,534 Afghans were interviewed in all of the country's 34 provinces between 30 December 2008 and 12 January 2009.
The poll found enormous hostility to the Taliban. 82% of people said they would prefer the present government; only 4% favoured a Taliban government. 90% of people said they opposed Taliban fighters. The Taliban were seen as the biggest danger to the country by 58% of people; the United States was in fourth place with 8% (just ahead of 'local commanders' - a euphemism for US-backed warlords).
'Who do you blame the most for the violence that is occurring in the country?' The Taliban came top with 27%; al-Qa'eda/foreign jihadis were next with 22%. In third place were 'US/American forces/Bush/US government/America/NATO/ISAF forces' with 21%.
69% of people thought it was a good thing that the US-led forces had come to Aghanistan to bring down the Taliban. (Down from 88% in 2006.)
64% of Afghans thought (in January 2009) that 'The Taliban are the same as before', and had not grown more moderate.
What we know is that the majority of people in Afghanistan (77%) want an end to the airstrikes that have killed hundreds, perhaps thousands, of Afghan civilians. We also know that the majority of Afghans (64%) want a negotiated end to the conflict, and are willing to accept the creation of a coalition government including the Taliban leadership.
We also know that a majority of Afghans oppose the Obama surge that is increasing the number of foreign troops in the country. 73% of Afghans think that US-led forces in the country should either be decreased in number (44%) or 'kept at the current level' (29%). Only 18% of Afghans favour an increase.
Negotiate now
Despite all this, a solid 64% of Afghans thought 'the government in Kabul should negotiate a settlement with Afghan Taliban in which they are allowed to hold political offices if they agree to stop fighting'. However, Afghans favoured preconditions to such talks: 71% said the government should 'negotiate only if the Taliban stop fighting'.
64% of British people also think 'America and Britain be willing to talk to the Taliban in Afghanistan in order to achieve a peace deal'. (Sunday Times, 15 March 2009)
Talks are only meaningful if the other side is willing to play their part. It seems, in the case of Afghanistan, that there is serious interest in a national reconciliation process on the part of the Taliban and the Karzai administration - but that these negotiations are being blocked by the United States and Britain, who are determined to achieve a military victory.

(The highlighted portion and bold emphasis is the most shocking part)
The Afghans not only want the US and British forces out, the also don't want an increase in military forces and are now, due to our prolonged invasion, willing to negotiate with the Taliban and allow them a place in the new government.
The US and Britain had intended to rid Afghanistan of the Taliban, but all they did was make them part of the government.
I'll answer the rest shortly, RR.
- Oni

This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by riVeRraT, posted 10-09-2009 3:14 PM riVeRraT has not replied

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 2950 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 78 of 119 (530436)
10-13-2009 1:28 PM
Reply to: Message 76 by riVeRraT
10-13-2009 7:11 AM


Seriously, try to focus on the facts for once
Why are they on the decline? Is that because the Taliban is on the incline? People are scared for their lives. In a country where you die just for talking to us, I would suspect the numbers to be on the decline. They will come to your village, kill you, rape the women, and hurt the children.
How can you guys support this kind of behavior?
You're right. We should just drop a bomb on the whole area and get rid of the Taliban... and the women and children, too. That way, no one can hurt them again.
Couple that with their past history of aggression towards us, we have no choice but to be involved there.
Do you mean the same history that involves the US helping train Bin Laden and giving rise to the Taliban so they could fight the Russians? - Or should we ignore that part of their history?
Why is it that we have PETA to protect the fish from getting hurt, but we can't protect basic human rights?
PETA is not a government organization, they're a private group of nut-jobs who use media hype to promote their particular brand of "animal rights." - (While I don't agree with their tactics, I do respect their efforts.)
Don't hurt the fish.....screw the Afghanistan women and children
Save a tree......kill a baby.
You don't seem to understand that the US involvement in Afghanistan has given the Taliban an equal position in the (soon to be) *new* government in Afghanistan.
It's the US's fault (I should be specific and say, Bush's fault) that the Taliban has risen to political status in that country. They didn't have it before we invaded, now the people are willing to allow them a position in the *new* government. How does that sound to you, RR?
There is no consistency in liberal minded thinkers, and no logic. All I see is hypocrites.
Close minded people usually see things their way and their way only...
- Oni
Edited by onifre, : No reason given.
Edited by onifre, : No reason given.
Edited by onifre, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by riVeRraT, posted 10-13-2009 7:11 AM riVeRraT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 81 by riVeRraT, posted 10-14-2009 11:47 AM onifre has replied

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 2950 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 92 of 119 (530906)
10-15-2009 1:24 PM
Reply to: Message 81 by riVeRraT
10-14-2009 11:47 AM


US supported the Taliban
Please, if we train ppl to defend themselves, and then they use it for wrong purposes, the blame rest solely on them.
But aren't they in fact "defending themselves" when they retaliate against a US invasion? You can't pick and choose who they should consider a threat. If they feel they're being invaded by what they would call an "imperialist nation," then it should be understood that they're actions are not "acts of terrorism," rather, they are acts of self defense.
That same group of nuts are most likely tree huggers, and anti-war type people.
How is being concerned with the environment and not supporting violence a bad thing?
You used euphamisms like "tree huggers" and "anti-war-type people," but essentially you're talking about people with environmental concerns and people who don't advocate war to solve issues. We should ALL be like that.
Why do you disagree with that and mock it?
That is just not true. The Taliban was in power, and were giving safe harbor to Al-Queda, and when the ISAF invaded it was 64,500 troops and 42 countries involved. Not "Bush". I will never forget.
You're missing a key factor: All the while, the people were against the Taliban's control, yet now, due to our invasion and prolonged occupation, the people have changed their opinion of the Taliban. They now want to resolve the fighting (which they always did), get rid of the US presence in their country and are willing to allow the Taliban a place in the newly reformed government. That wasn't the case prior to the US lead invasion and prolonged occupation - that has done nothing to help that country, and has only increased the violence.
It's also important to remember that the US supported the Taliban and Al-Qaeda by selling them weapons and recruiting radical soldiers to fight the Russians in the 80's.
source
quote:
...some basis for military support of the Taliban was provided when, in the early 1980s, the CIA and the ISI (Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence agency) provided arms to Afghans resisting the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, and the ISI assisted the process of gathering radical Muslims from around the world to fight against the Soviets. Osama Bin Laden was one of the key players in organizing training camps for the foreign Muslim volunteers. The U.S. poured funds and arms into Afghanistan, and "by 1987, 65,000 tons of U.S.-made weapons and ammunition a year were entering the war." FBI translator Sibel Edmonds, who has been fired from the agency for disclosing sensitive information, has claimed the United States was on intimate terms with Taliban and Al-Qaeda, using them to further certain goals in Central Asia.
We create the monsters, then get upset when they turn on us. It's sad and pathetic.
- Oni

This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by riVeRraT, posted 10-14-2009 11:47 AM riVeRraT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 98 by riVeRraT, posted 10-16-2009 9:31 AM onifre has replied

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 2950 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 105 of 119 (531386)
10-17-2009 2:06 PM


Open Letter to Obama
I found this letter to Obama to be a very good read. It really hits at the heart of the issue IMO.
(Jazzns, Izagani, Hyro, Dronester) Thought you guys who are debating the Israel/Palestinian conflict might enjoy reading it the most.
quote:
October 13, 2009 - By Sonja Karkar
The sounds of "yes we can" still ring in our ears, Mr President, but we have yet to see the changes we can believe in. That was evident when you backed down to Israel on a settlement freeze in the West Bank and East Jerusalem. You made us believe that we can, but it seems that you no longer believe that you can.
On the matter of Palestine, many people in the world would have been happy if you had just stuck to your word. The tragic, relentlessly abused Palestinians were ready to say, "yes we can"; we can negotiate peace again, despite sixteen years of repeated failures, if you would ensure that Israel freezes and dismantles its illegal settlement building. We would all say "yes we can" if we could see the US finally become an honest broker in such an obviously unequal conflict.
However, the summit meeting you had with the Israeli and Palestinian leaders is worse than that sense of dj vu everyone is talking about. We know that we have all been here before, but more Palestinians are dying Mr President, more of their land is being stolen and being built on, more of their children are suffering from hunger, anaemia and unrelieved psychological trauma, more of their painful hope is being tortured out of them by our miserable efforts to gloss over an ethnic cleansing we said would never happen again.
What are you waiting for Mr President if you cannot put at least a temporary hold on the $3 billion plus-a-year "aid" your country gives to Israel? If you cannot stop arms sales to Israel when US law expressly states they must be used for defensive purposes only, and when there is precedent for doing so? If you cannot countenance the UN Security Council reaching its own conclusions free of US veto on the charges of war crimes in the Goldstone report? If you cannot distance the US administration from Israel's aggression and defiance even though it hurts America's interests?
We didn't need a United Nations report to tell us what was so blatantly obvious, but now that we have Goldstone's documented war crimes in Gaza, your concerns about the validity of his mandate only make us wonder if law has lost its meaning. All this patter about moving forward without calling in the debts of horrific crimes against humanity will surely take us down a slippery slope to lawlessness - a licence for aggression - where anything goes for those in power. But what kind of power is it when you cannot stop what you have started? What kind of power is it when you fear the people you suppress by force and terror?
As each day passes, Mr President, people everywhere believe less and less that you will change the eight awful years of neoconservative rule. In fact, they see things getting much worse. The words "yes we can" increasingly grate, as you do nothing: and you of all people could have turned the Titanic midstream. The world would have been with you, no matter how powerful the military-industrial complex that your late President Eisenhower warned Americans about, no matter how shrill the cries of some 30 million Christian Zionists salivating over End Times in Jerusalem, no matter how intimidating the Israel lobby that shamefully holds Congress in its sway to the detriment of America's own interests.
Do you really think we don't know that these forces are dictating our futures?
What kind of future then do you envisage for the 4 million Palestinians under occupation and almost 5 million refugees Mr President? There is no two-state solution: it is a sham. In East Jerusalem and the West Bank, Palestinians are being stripped of their homes and their farming lands while Jewish foreigners flood in from abroad to populate the monstrous complexes being built illegally on the last remaining vestiges of the Palestinian homeland. And in Gaza, people are drowning in blood, ravaged by hunger, sickness and hopelessness while they watch politicians grin and shake hands and make promises that everyone knows are as empty today as they were yesterday. Must another generation of Palestinians watch their prison walls squeeze them in tighter while the world plays more games of pretending peace and talking about a future state vanishing before their eyes?
Be honest with us Mr President and tell us openly that you cannot fight the forces stacked against you alone. We would understand that. We do want to believe that a sense of justice will still move you to make the changes we can believe in. Billions of people in the world are ready to carry you on the crest of a tsunami, if you would only give us more than words. Perhaps from where you stand Mr President you don't hear how hollow they sound.
Yet, it is in that very same hollow space that more and more people can hear the keening sounds of silence from Gaza and the rapidly fading echoes of your "Yes we can". It is not too late Mr President to give us the changes we can believe in; it is not too late to say Palestine, "yes we can".
Sonja Karkar is the co-founder and co-convener of Australians for Palestine and founder and president of Women for Palestine in Melbourne, Australia. She is also the editor of the website and has had numerous articles published in online and printed journals and Australian newspapers. She can be reached at sonjakarkar@womenforpalestine.org
My favorite line: "Billions of people in the world are ready to carry you on the crest of a tsunami, if you would only give us more than words. Perhaps from where you stand Mr President you don't hear how hollow they sound."
- Oni

Replies to this message:
 Message 107 by Jazzns, posted 10-19-2009 11:52 AM onifre has not replied
 Message 110 by riVeRraT, posted 10-22-2009 11:32 PM onifre has not replied

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 2950 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 106 of 119 (531389)
10-17-2009 2:28 PM
Reply to: Message 98 by riVeRraT
10-16-2009 9:31 AM


Re: US supported the Taliban
But they are not doing that, they are taking our training and using it to violate basic human rights. The rest of the world probably agrees, as you can read in the links provided. They are terrorizing their own people.
Fair point, RR. And I don't disagree that the Taliban and Al Qaeda are a horrible group that must be shut down.
But sadly, they are this way (and were this way) before, during and after US support. The weapons that they are using to hurt the people of Afghanistan were sold to them by the US. They exist due to our support.
And the US knew what type of group they were but at the time they were beneficial.
Well you can't have it both ways. You can't support a monster, supply it weapons and then question why they are commit horrific acts on their own people.
While the US backed them and supplied them weapons, they were doing the same thing to the citizens of Afghanistan. The US turned a blind eye to them torturing citizens because we were using the Taliban and Al Qaeda to fight the Soviets.
Now it's a human rights issue? It was ALWAYS a human rights issue but no one cared.
I have yet to read that anywhere, or see that on TV.
I supplied you with the link to the actual numbers several times.
From Message 73
quote:
Despite all this, a solid 64% of Afghans thought 'the government in Kabul should negotiate a settlement with Afghan Taliban in which they are allowed to hold political offices if they agree to stop fighting'. However, Afghans favoured preconditions to such talks: 71% said the government should 'negotiate only if the Taliban stop fighting'.
64% of Afghans thought "the government in Kabul should negotiate a settlement with Afghan Taliban in which they are allowed to hold political offices."
I can't believe that people who so vigorously speak out against radicals seem to be supporting them now.
I can't either. But the US has much to do for the people's change of opinion toward the Taliban. The prolonged fighting and occupation of that land by US and British forces has made these poor people break, and give in to the Taliban, if only to have the fighting stop and some peace back in their lives.
Can you blame them?
- Oni

This message is a reply to:
 Message 98 by riVeRraT, posted 10-16-2009 9:31 AM riVeRraT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 108 by Hyroglyphx, posted 10-20-2009 10:46 AM onifre has replied
 Message 111 by riVeRraT, posted 10-23-2009 12:09 AM onifre has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024