John Pilger - Obama's First Hundred Days

[LiverpoolHibs]

http://www.johnpilger.com/page.asp?partid=530

Obama's Hundred Days - The Mad Men Did Well.

The BBC's American television soap Mad Men offers a rare glimpse of the power of corporate advertising. The promotion of smoking half a century ago by the “smart” people of Madison Avenue, who knew the truth, led to countless deaths. Advertising and its twin, public relations, became a way of deceiving dreamt up by those who had read Freud and applied mass psychology to anything from cigarettes to politics. Just as Marlboro Man was virility itself, so politicians could be branded, packaged and sold.

It is more than 100 days since Barack Obama was elected president of the United States. The “Obama brand” has been named “Advertising Age’s marketer of the year for 2008”, easily beating Apple computers. David Fenton of MoveOn.org describes Obama’s election campaign as “an institutionalised mass-level automated technological community organising that has never existed before and is a very, very powerful force”. Deploying the internet and a slogan plagiarised from the Latino union organiser César Chávez – “Sí, se puede!” or “Yes, we can” – the mass-level automated technological community marketed its brand to victory in a country desperate to be rid of George W Bush.

No one knew what the new brand actually stood for. So accomplished was the advertising (a record $75m was spent on television commercials alone) that many Americans actually believed Obama shared their opposition to Bush’s wars. In fact, he had repeatedly backed Bush’s warmongering and its congressional funding. Many Americans also believed he was the heir to Martin Luther King’s legacy of anti-colonialism. Yet if Obama had a theme at all, apart from the vacuous “Change you can believe in”, it was the renewal of America as a dominant, avaricious bully. “We will be the most powerful,” he often declared.

Perhaps the Obama brand’s most effective advertising was supplied free of charge by those journalists who, as courtiers of a rapacious system, promote shining knights. They depoliticised him, spinning his platitudinous speeches as “adroit literary creations, rich, like those Doric columns, with allusion...” (Charlotte Higgins in the Guardian). The San Francisco Chronicle columnist Mark Morford wrote: “Many spiritually advanced people I know... identify Obama as a Lightworker, that rare kind of attuned being who... can actually help usher in a new way of being on the planet.”

In his first 100 days, Obama has excused torture, opposed habeas corpus and demanded more secret government. He has kept Bush’s gulag intact and at least 17,000 prisoners beyond the reach of justice. On 24 April, his lawyers won an appeal that ruled Guantanamo Bay prisoners were not “persons”, and therefore had no right not to be tortured. His national intelligence director, Admiral Dennis Blair, says he believes torture works. One of his senior US intelligence officials in Latin America is accused of covering up the torture of an American nun in Guatemala in 1989; another is a Pinochet apologist. As Daniel Ellsberg has pointed out, the US experienced a military coup under Bush, whose secretary of “defence”, Robert Gates, along with the same warmaking officials, has been retained by Obama.

All over the world, America’s violent assault on innocent people, directly or by agents, has been stepped up. During the recent massacre in Gaza, reports Seymour Hersh, “the Obama team let it be known that it would not object to the planned resupply of ‘smart bombs’ and other hi-tech ordnance that was already flowing to Israel” and being used to slaughter mostly women and children. In Pakistan, the number of civilians killed by US missiles called drones has more than doubled since Obama took office.

In Afghanistan, the US “strategy” of killing Pashtun tribespeople (the “Taliban”) has been extended by Obama to give the Pentagon time to build a series of permanent bases right across the devastated country where, says Secretary Gates, the US military will remain indefinitely. Obama’s policy, one unchanged since the Cold War, is to intimidate Russia and China, now an imperial rival. He is proceeding with Bush’s provocation of placing missiles on Russia’s western border, justifying it as a counter to Iran, which he accuses, absurdly, of posing “a real threat” to Europe and the US. On 5 April in Prague, he made a speech reported as “anti-nuclear”. It was nothing of the kind. Under the Pentagon’s Reliable Replacement Warhead programme, the US is building new “tactical” nuclear weapons designed to blur the distinction between nuclear and conventional war.

Perhaps the biggest lie – the equivalent of smoking is good for you – is Obama’s announcement that the US is leaving Iraq, the country it has reduced to a river of blood. According to unabashed US army planners, as many as 70,000 troops will remain “for the next 15 to 20 years”. On 25 April, his secretary of state, Hillary Clinton, alluded to this. It is not surprising that the polls are showing that a growing number of Americans believe they have been suckered – especially as the nation’s economy has been entrusted to the same fraudsters who destroyed it. Lawrence Summers, Obama’s principal economic adviser, is throwing $3trn at the same banks that paid him more than $8m last year, including $135,000 for one speech. Change you can believe in.

Much of the American establishment loathed Bush and Cheney for exposing, and threatening, the onward march of America’s “grand design”, as Henry Kissinger, war criminal and now Obama adviser, calls it. In advertising terms, Bush was a “brand collapse” whereas Obama, with his toothpaste advertisement smile and righteous clichés, is a godsend. At a stroke, he has seen off serious domestic dissent to war, and he brings tears to the eyes, from Washington to Whitehall. He is the BBC’s man, and CNN’s man, and Murdoch’s man, and Wall Street’s man, and the CIA’s man. The Madmen did well.


Ouch. And that's without today's slaughter.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/8036528.stm

[Bishop Hibee]

Pilger cuts through the crap and tells it how it is.

While it was indeed momentous that a black man could become the most powerful person in the world, what good does it do anyone if he perpetuates the policies which have earned the USA it's status as a hated state?

[GC]

Just sounds to me like bitter slaverings.

[LiverpoolHibs]

Just sounds to me like bitter slaverings.

I suggest you give it another read then...

[GC]

I suggest you give it another read then...

LH, I like to read what you have to say and have a lot of time for your opinions on here but to me all this reads like is a dig at Obama, you may not see it this way but for the author to even hint that he is no more than a glossed up version of Bush is nonsense.

[LiverpoolHibs]

LH, I like to read what you have to say and have a lot of time for your opinions on here but to me all this reads like is a dig at Obama, you may not see it this way but for the author to even hint that he is no more than a glossed up version of Bush is nonsense.

That's probably because it is a dig at Obama; and there's nothing in there that isn't true. Thus far, how exactly has he shown himself to be vastly different to the previous encumbant - except with the added romanticism and pseudo-intellectualism that the Western liberal media have lapped up?

[Betty Boop]

That's probably because it is a dig at Obama; and there's nothing in there that isn't true. Thus far, how exactly has he shown himself to be vastly different to the previous encumbant - except with the added romanticism and pseudo-intellectualism that the Western liberal media have lapped up?

Have you seen the "Obama Deception"? http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7886780711843120756

[LiverpoolHibs]

Have you seen the "Obama Deception"? http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7886780711843120756

Oooooh, no thank you very much. I'd rather religiously read the Sun than watch anything Alex Jones is involved with.

[Betty Boop]

Oooooh, no thank you very much. I'd rather religiously read the Sun than watch anything Alex Jones is involved with.
I know its Alex Jones, but it is still interesting. :greengrin

[GhostofBolivar]

Just sounds to me like bitter slaverings.

Some bedtime reading for you (http://www.amnesty.org/en/ai_search?did_adv_search=true&keywords=Bagram+Theater+internment+camp&sort=date&start_date=&end_date=&region=**ALL**&issue=**ALL**&language=en&document_types%5Breports%5D=reports&document_types%5Bpress_materials%5D=press_material s&document_types%5Burgent_actions%5D=urgent_actions&document_types%5Baudio_video%5D=audio_video&document_types%5Bother%5D=other&op=Search+Document+Library&form_id=amnestysearch_library_form&start_date_jscalendar%5BifFormat%5D=%25Y-%25m-%25d&start_date_jscalendar%5BshowsTime%5D=false&end_date_jscalendar%5BifFormat%5D=%25Y-%25m-%25d&end_date_jscalendar%5BshowsTime%5D=false)

[hibsbollah]

Ive got a few of Pilger's books and after a while he just grates. Pilger is a professional dissenter. Ive yet to see anything he actually agrees with. So for every worthwhile campaign he does (supporting the Chagos islanders, forensic criticism of the Gulf War), he does wooly attacks on undeserving targets like Obama or his similarly ridiculous assault on post-apartheid South Africa.

Some of his statements are just nonsense (Obama excused torture? when? why has he ordered the closure of Guantanamo then?) He seems to hate the new South Africa or Obama because they havent created a socialist utopia overnight. What did he expect?:confused:

[LiverpoolHibs]

Ive got a few of Pilger's books and after a while he just grates. Pilger is a professional dissenter. Ive yet to see anything he actually agrees with. So for every worthwhile campaign he does (supporting the Chagos islanders, forensic criticism of the Gulf War), he does wooly attacks on undeserving targets like Obama or his similarly ridiculous assault on post-apartheid South Africa.

Some of his statements are just nonsense (Obama excused torture? when? why has he ordered the closure of Guantanamo then?) He seems to hate the new South Africa or Obama because they havent created a socialist utopia overnight. What did he expect?:confused:

Come on, they're hardly undeserving!

N.B. - Richard Fein on his 'nonsense statements' - http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2009-04-17/how-obama-excused-torture/

[hibsbollah]

Come on, they're hardly undeserving!

N.B. - Richard Fein on his 'nonsense statements' - http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2009-04-17/how-obama-excused-torture/

I read it. The fact that he is unwilling to prosecute CIA agents for past crimes pales into insignificance against him closing the place down and changing US policy going forward. He has realpolitik to deal with.

When Pilger calls Obama an 'Uncle Tom' in the new statesman, he is presuming that only middle class white socialists like himself can know whats best for ethnic minorities, as Sunny Hundal says in the article below. Why can Jesse Jackson see the possibility for positive change, but Pilger can't?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/nov/30/obama-white-house-barackobama

Leaving Obama aside, read what Pilger has to say in 'Freedom Next Time' about post-apartheid South Africa. Apparently because they havent instituted a socialist revolution they are 'worse than apartheid':rolleyes:. And read his ludicrous apologism for the Serbian mass murderers in Yugoslavia, clearly motivated by the fact that the Govt was bombed by NATO. Our enemy's enemy isnt necessarily our friend, John.

[LiverpoolHibs]

I read it. The fact that he is unwilling to prosecute CIA agents for past crimes pales into insignificance against him closing the place down and changing US policy going forward. He has realpolitik to deal with.

When Pilger calls Obama an 'Uncle Tom' in the new statesman, he is presuming that only middle class white socialists like himself can know whats best for ethnic minorities, as Sunny Hundal says in the article below. Why can Jesse Jackson see the possibility for positive change, but Pilger can't?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/nov/30/obama-white-house-barackobama

Leaving Obama aside, read what Pilger has to say in 'Freedom Next Time' about post-apartheid South Africa. Apparently because they havent instituted a socialist revolution they are 'worse than apartheid'. And read his ludicrous apologism for the Serbian mass murderers in Yugoslavia, clearly motivated by the fact that the Govt was bombed by NATO. Our enemy's enemy isnt necessarily our friend, John.

Are they actually the words he uses? If so, granted that's a very stupid thing to say.

[hibsbollah]

Are they actually the words he uses? If so, granted that's a very stupid thing to say.

'Fraid so. I wish he'd stick to investigative journalism, which I grant you hes very good at.

[RyeSloan]

Just sounds to me like bitter slaverings.

Don't know about slaverings but they are certainly a creative negative attack...he has selected and presented a number of arguments to make his point but yet fails to mention something as fundamental as the fact that Obama has ordered Gitmo to close.

I prefer to read balanced arguements to reach conclusions, stuff like this is simply a turn off for me as the writer has already decided before he starts how he wants to paint the picture no matter what the reality may be.

I'm with Hibsbollah on this one (suppose it had to happen sometime :wink:)..it's clear to most obvservers that the Obama approach is clearly different to Bush's in a number of areas, something that is obviously shown in areas like the bills already in front of Congress and the approach to foreign policy. Quite how anyone can say that Obama is simply carrying on Bush's approach to the rest of the world is beyond me.

[--------]

Barak Obama as a man of straw? :cool2:

Not a surprise. Cutting through the rhetoric, what Pilger is saying here is that for all the advertising hype surrounding his election, BO hasn't changed US policy towards the Middle East or South America one bit.

The breaches of international law go on and will continue to do so. The torturers will simply find a more remote and less conspicuous venue than Guantanamo.

The human rights abuses go on.

The connections with Soiuth American Fascists like Pinochet remain.

Israel's supply of "smart" bombs (which really aren't all that smart and cause horrendous amounts of "collateral damage") is under no threat.

The Afghan War will continue indefinitely - once the US is out of Iraq they'll have lots and lots more soldiers to send there, after all.

So what is he? "Dubya Lite"? "The Acceptable Face of Global Agression"? The American re-make of Tony Bliar?

Pilger may well be wrong about post-apartheid South Africa and said some questionable things about the Balkans, but that doesn't mean he's wrong here.

[ancient hibee]

John Pilger is anti American -always has been and won't change-this means that everything he writes is totally one sided and makes a rational appraisal of the content impossible.

[Woody1985]

Barak Obama as a man of straw? :cool2:

Not a surprise. Cutting through the rhetoric, what Pilger is saying here is that for all the advertising hype surrounding his election, BO hasn't changed US policy towards the Middle East or South America one bit.

The breaches of international law go on and will continue to do so. The torturers will simply find a more remote and less conspicuous venue than Guantanamo.

The human rights abuses go on.

The connections with Soiuth American Fascists like Pinochet remain.

Israel's supply of "smart" bombs (which really aren't all that smart and cause horrendous amounts of "collateral damage") is under no threat.

The Ag=fghan War will continue indefinitely - once the US is out of Iraq they'll have lots and lots more soldiers to send there, after all.

So what is he? "Dubya Lite"? "The Acceptable Face of Global Agression"? The American re-make of Tony Bliar?

Pilger may well be wrong about post-apartheid South Africa and said some questionable things about the Balkans, but that doesn't mean he's wrong here.

Good.

If more soldiers can halt the supply of Herion that gets onto our streets, destroying communities and families then I for one am happy.

It will also reduce the amount of funding that goes towards terrorism that the poppy fields make. The locals may also get back some of their farmland that has been taken from them / pushed into an economic situation where they need to grow drugs that end up on our street.

[hibsbollah]

what Pilger is saying here is that for all the advertising hype surrounding his election, BO hasn't changed US policy towards the Middle East or South America one bit.



I may be wrong, I may be hopelessly naive, but I think he needs to be given a chance. He only took office in January:greengrin In military terms 'policy change' takes time. What he's been saying in speeches; olive branches to Iran, meeting Chavez etc., should give some cause for hope.

[The Green Goblin]

Good.

If more soldiers can halt the supply of Herion that gets onto our streets, destroying communities and families then I for one am happy.

It will also reduce the amount of funding that goes towards terrorism that the poppy fields make. The locals may also get back some of their farmland that has been taken from them / pushed into an economic situation where they need to grow drugs that end up on our street.


I wish that were true, but it`s not. The fact remains that since the Taliban were `removed` from power, since the invasion, heroin production has rocketed in Afghanistan, many times over.

As nasty as they are, and you would never hear this on the news, the Taliban actually tried to destroy the country`s heroin production because it`s use ran counter to their strict religious beliefs. I`m trying to find you the link to back this up, so bear with me, but this is not heresay or conspiracy. I can back this up with figures and evidence.

The Northern Alliance, who became the `good guys` after 9/11, were responsible for most of Afghanistan`s heroin shipments. On the torture and murder front, they also gave the Taliban a damn good run for their money, yet people somehow bought the lie that they were everything the Taliban weren`t - the plucky natives on the ground fighting for "us". And so it begins once again. A mistake from history blindly repeated. Honestly, the U.S don`t have a clue, not a clue.

In the 80s, the CIA threw money at Bin Laden and the Afghan fighters because they were killing communist russians, now, they`re doing it all over again with the latest "foreign ally" and sewing the seeds for future retribution when the puppet realises it`s powerful and decides it doesn`t want its strings pulled any longer.

There`s about 1 small area in Afghanistan where the Taliban don`t have the upper hand, but you wouldn`t think that when you watch the news. It`s all going to plan, except when drone strikes kill hundreds of civilians, but you can always just say it`s regrettable and there`ll be an investigation.

http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/fisk/robert-fisk-civilians-pay-price-of--war-from-above-1680408.html

If it happened here, it would be a terrorist outrage, but over there, it`s no big deal, they`re not Western lives being lost, so we can live with it.

http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/fisk/robert-fisks-world-when-did-we-stop-caring-about-civilian-deaths-during-wartime-1521708.html

Oh, and Karzai has just appointed one of Afghanistan`s most notorious murderers as his running mate in the elections.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/karzai-criticised-over-choice-of-running-mate-1679064.html

Freedom and democracy come to Afghanistan....hurrah!

GG

[RyeSloan]

So you think the world should let the Taliban rule over Afghanistan and now Pakistan??

[Woody1985]

I wish that were true, but it`s not. The fact remains that since the Taliban were `removed` from power, since the invasion, heroin production has rocketed in Afghanistan, many times over.

As nasty as they are, and you would never hear this on the news, the Taliban actually tried to destroy the country`s heroin production because it`s use ran counter to their strict religious beliefs. I`m trying to find you the link to back this up, so bear with me, but this is not heresay or conspiracy. I can back this up with figures and evidence.

The Northern Alliance, who became the `good guys` after 9/11, were responsible for most of Afghanistan`s heroin shipments. On the torture and murder front, they also gave the Taliban a damn good run for their money, yet people somehow bought the lie that they were everything the Taliban weren`t - the plucky natives on the ground fighting for "us". And so it begins once again. A mistake from history blindly repeated. Honestly, the U.S don`t have a clue, not a clue.

In the 80s, the CIA threw money at Bin Laden and the Afghan fighters because they were killing communist russians, now, they`re doing it all over again with the latest "foreign ally" and sewing the seeds for future retribution when the puppet realises it`s powerful and decides it doesn`t want its strings pulled any longer.

There`s about 1 small area in Afghanistan where the Taliban don`t have the upper hand, but you wouldn`t think that when you watch the news. It`s all going to plan, except when drone strikes kill hundreds of civilians, but you can always just say it`s regrettable and there`ll be an investigation.

http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/fisk/robert-fisk-civilians-pay-price-of--war-from-above-1680408.html

If it happened here, it would be a terrorist outrage, but over there, it`s no big deal, they`re not Western lives being lost, so we can live with it.

http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/fisk/robert-fisks-world-when-did-we-stop-caring-about-civilian-deaths-during-wartime-1521708.html

Oh, and Karzai has just appointed one of Afghanistan`s most notorious murderers as his running mate in the elections.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/karzai-criticised-over-choice-of-running-mate-1679064.html

Freedom and democracy come to Afghanistan....hurrah!

GG

Thanks for the info.

I'll have a look over it this weekend.

[--------]

Good.

If more soldiers can halt the supply of Herion that gets onto our streets, destroying communities and families then I for one am happy.

It will also reduce the amount of funding that goes towards terrorism that the poppy fields make. The locals may also get back some of their farmland that has been taken from them / pushed into an economic situation where they need to grow drugs that end up on our street.


If you think that this war will have any effect whatever on the drug problem here or in the US, you're heading for a sad disillusioning, my friend.

The problem isn't in the drugs, but in tha addicts, and if the supply from Afghanistan dries up, someone else somehwere else will step in to supply the need.

In the late 1960's, of course, the big supplier to the States was the CIA - from South-East Asia. They're still in the business, you know, but they're mainly based in South America these days.

[The Green Goblin]

So you think the world should let the Taliban rule over Afghanistan and now Pakistan??

The "world", by which I think you mean the U.S and its allies, was so happy the Taliban were in power when they were killing Soviets, they gave them millions of dollars and weapons. Now they are fighting against people firing those same weapons.

The "world" knew Saddam Hussein was using poison gas in the Iran-Iraq war and on his own people and not only did they "let" him do it, they (Donald Rumsfeld in 1983) even went there and sold him the materials he needed to do it. The "world" has always chosen its allies according to self-interest and not what is right. Time for a reality check.

But by answering that I am allowing you to divert from the main point here.

The implication in your question is that faced with the deaths of hundreds of innocent civilians in drone attacks, one shrugs and says "ah but are we supposed to do nothing?" and that, although you probably won`t agree, is the enormous problem of double standards in "our" world when it comes to killing people.

The awful (and subconscious) implication in your response, is that the deaths of those people are justified, or somehow understandable, even acceptable, because "we`re" trying to do something right. 100 civilians die in a bomb attack and there`s "regret", it happens, it was the enemy`s fault for using them as shields. 1 person dies in a western country and it`s a "terrorist outrage". But the life of one `westerner` is much more valuable than all those hundreds of blank, anonymous, unknown victims living in huts a few thousand miles away, right?

How can we look the world in the eye and say we are trying to get rid of people who kill innocent civilians in the name of their beliefs, whilst we murder them in their thousands in the name of things like `freedom` or `bringing democracy`?

And how can you argue that our massive bombing campaigns are not also a form of "terrorism"? Is it not to be called or thought of as "terrorism" because we do it and not them? The last time I checked, it was still against International Law to bomb or target built-up civilian areas.

Our politicians express regret, apologise for so many men, women and children killed, ripped to bits by our bombs and missiles because they were in the wrong place at the wrong time, and it`s alright - the tv viewer`s conscience is appeased, we turn away and get on with our daily lives, we didn`t have to see dead children because the media here won`t show such distasteful things. People might be offended.

Then in the next breath, they condemn evil men for taking lives. You couldn`t make it up.

GG

[hibsbollah]

Only slightly off topic...I was listening to a report from Saudi Arabia on the radio today. Without a doubt the most extreme fundamentalist Islamic state on the planet, where you can be beheaded without access to a lawyer, flogged for meeting an unmarried woman in public and where women can't drive cars (insert joke here:greengrin). Its also the US and UKs biggest ally in the middle east, and recently the UK concluded the biggest arms sale of all time with the unelected Saudi 'monarchy'. They are also filthy rich.

So lets drop the pretence that we're in Afghanistan to introduce democracy or western liberal values to the place. Otherwise we'd also be bombing hell out of Saudi Arabia, Uzbekistan, Burma, Kenya, Sudan, China, Russia and a load of other countries who we're friendly with.

(I know I know, i sound like John Pilger)

[--------]

The "world", by which I think you mean the U.S and its allies, was so happy the Taliban were in power when they were killing Soviets, they gave them millions of dollars and weapons. Now they are fighting against people firing those same weapons.

The "world" knew Saddam Hussein was using poison gas in the Iran-Iraq war and on his own people and not only did they "let" him do it, they (Donald Rumsfeld in 1983) even went there and sold him the materials he needed to do it. The "world" has always chosen its allies according to self-interest and not what is right. Time for a reality check.

But by answering that I am allowing you to divert from the main point here.

The implication in your question is that faced with the deaths of hundreds of innocent civilians in drone attacks, one shrugs and says "ah but are we supposed to do nothing?" and that, although you probably won`t agree, is the enormous problem of double standards in "our" world when it comes to killing people.

The awful (and subconscious) implication in your response, is that the deaths of those people are justified, or somehow understandable, even acceptable, because "we`re" trying to do something right. 100 civilians die in a bomb attack and there`s "regret", it happens, it was the enemy`s fault for using them as shields. 1 person dies in a western country and it`s a "terrorist outrage". But the life of one `westerner` is much more valuable than all those hundreds of blank, anonymous, unknown victims living in huts a few thousand miles away, right?

How can we look the world in the eye and say we are trying to get rid of people who kill innocent civilians in the name of their beliefs, whilst we murder them in their thousands in the name of things like `freedom` or `bringing democracy`?

And how can you argue that our massive bombing campaigns are not also a form of "terrorism"? Is it not to be called or thought of as "terrorism" because we do it and not them? The last time I checked, it was still against International Law to bomb or target built-up civilian areas.

Our politicians express regret, apologise for so many men, women and children killed, ripped to bits by our bombs and missiles because they were in the wrong place at the wrong time, and it`s alright - the tv viewer`s conscience is appeased, we turn away and get on with our daily lives, we didn`t have to see dead children because the media here won`t show such distasteful things. People might be offended.

Then in the next breath, they condemn evil men for taking lives. You couldn`t make it up.

GG


:top marks

[Part/Time Supporter]

Oooooh, no thank you very much. I'd rather religiously read the Sun than watch anything Alex Jones is involved with.

At least Alex Jones has a (ultra-libertarian) mind of his own, which is a lot more than can be said for anyone who edits a Murdoch newspaper.

[Betty Boop]

http://informationclearinghouse.info/article22567.htm

[Woody1985]

If you think that this war will have any effect whatever on the drug problem here or in the US, you're heading for a sad disillusioning, my friend.

The problem isn't in the drugs, but in tha addicts, and if the supply from Afghanistan dries up, someone else somehwere else will step in to supply the need.

In the late 1960's, of course, the big supplier to the States was the CIA - from South-East Asia. They're still in the business, you know, but they're mainly based in South America these days.

Don't patronise me.

I respect a lot of the things you have to say on here about a lot of different subjects but you seem to be coming out with patter like this more and more if people aren't as knowledable as you about certain things and I for one don't like being spoken to like an arse.

[Expecting Rain]

The "world", by which I think you mean the U.S and its allies, was so happy the Taliban were in power when they were killing Soviets, they gave them millions of dollars and weapons. Now they are fighting against people firing those same weapons.

The "world" knew Saddam Hussein was using poison gas in the Iran-Iraq war and on his own people and not only did they "let" him do it, they (Donald Rumsfeld in 1983) even went there and sold him the materials he needed to do it. The "world" has always chosen its allies according to self-interest and not what is right. Time for a reality check.

But by answering that I am allowing you to divert from the main point here.

The implication in your question is that faced with the deaths of hundreds of innocent civilians in drone attacks, one shrugs and says "ah but are we supposed to do nothing?" and that, although you probably won`t agree, is the enormous problem of double standards in "our" world when it comes to killing people.

The awful (and subconscious) implication in your response, is that the deaths of those people are justified, or somehow understandable, even acceptable, because "we`re" trying to do something right. 100 civilians die in a bomb attack and there`s "regret", it happens, it was the enemy`s fault for using them as shields. 1 person dies in a western country and it`s a "terrorist outrage". But the life of one `westerner` is much more valuable than all those hundreds of blank, anonymous, unknown victims living in huts a few thousand miles away, right?

How can we look the world in the eye and say we are trying to get rid of people who kill innocent civilians in the name of their beliefs, whilst we murder them in their thousands in the name of things like `freedom` or `bringing democracy`?

And how can you argue that our massive bombing campaigns are not also a form of "terrorism"? Is it not to be called or thought of as "terrorism" because we do it and not them? The last time I checked, it was still against International Law to bomb or target built-up civilian areas.

Our politicians express regret, apologise for so many men, women and children killed, ripped to bits by our bombs and missiles because they were in the wrong place at the wrong time, and it`s alright - the tv viewer`s conscience is appeased, we turn away and get on with our daily lives, we didn`t have to see dead children because the media here won`t show such distasteful things. People might be offended.

Then in the next breath, they condemn evil men for taking lives. You couldn`t make it up.

GG

You are absolutely spot on my friend but unfortunately rather than there being problems with certain countries there has always been a problem with human nature, whoever has the power seeks to increase that power irrrespective of their nationalities, insecurity breeds prejudice and that in turn usually breeds conflict, the cosy half of the world only really start to recognise a world that is going wrong when they themselves are directly affected, it seems to be carry on regardless depending which side of the fence you are on.

[LiverpoolHibs]

John Pilger is anti American -always has been and won't change-this means that everything he writes is totally one sided and makes a rational appraisal of the content impossible.

Lazy.


At least Alex Jones has a (ultra-libertarian) mind of his own, which is a lot more than can be said for anyone who edits a Murdoch newspaper.

True enough, I only mentioned the Sun as it's my benchmark for ****ness.

[ancient hibee]

Lazy.



True enough, I only mentioned the Sun as it's my benchmark for ****ness.


I agree he's very lazy-starts with an entrenched position and an already reached conclusion-uses those facts that support his position while ignoring those that contradict him and then presents it as an authoratative piece.Very perceptiveof you.

[LiverpoolHibs]

I agree he's very lazy-starts with an entrenched position and an already reached conclusion-uses those facts that support his position while ignoring those that contradict him and then presents it as an authoratative piece.Very perceptiveof you.

Has the U.S. done much to dispel or discourage such an 'entrenched position' in the last fifty or so years, in your view? Or maybe constantly reinforce it...

[The Green Goblin]

In one of my draft copies of what I was going to include in my last post, I had made reference to the fact that I would change it to include serious criminals only. I appear to have taken that out of the final message that I actually posted. I apologise for that as I genuinely wasn't trying to be smart.

I believe you and don`t worry about it. I thought it did alter the argument and that`s the only reason I pointed it out.

In terms of your comparison with how the Nazis dealt with the Jews, I understand how you can see a similarity, but it is different to what I was talking about. I wasn't talking about targetting innocent people purely because they come from a certain ethnic background. I have spoken quite often of the positive impact that migrants who integrate into our society, have on this country and I welcome people like this to Scotland and the UK. I was (eventually) talking about people who commit very serious crimes, that was all. However I have said that, on reflection, I would not go ahead with such a proposal.Contrary to what several people on this thread may believe about me, I do not support the BNP nor do I admire Adolf Hitler and I do not hate immigrants.

I didn`t think any of those things about you, I just tried to point out where I saw the 2 arguments connecting. I also think that adopting a zero tolerance policy is not always the effective way of removing the root causes of problems. It is very difficult to find the right solutions to some of the problems being discussed on this thread. I just don`t agree that someone`s nationality comes into it, that`s all. I do think peterdouglas managed to say in a single sentence what I was rambling on about in my last post about this when he wrote: "People born here should be treated equally in the eyes of the law...regardless of where their parents are from." If someone is proved to have committed a crime, then yes, they ought to pay their debt to society, but they shouldn`t be further punished because of where they or their parents happen to come from in the world. Peace. :wink:



GG

[HibsMax]

I may be wrong, I may be hopelessly naive, but I think he needs to be given a chance. He only took office in January:greengrin In military terms 'policy change' takes time. What he's been saying in speeches; olive branches to Iran, meeting Chavez etc., should give some cause for hope.

I was thinking something similar. And something that people HAVE to realise here is that if it wasn't Brack Obama in power then it would be John McCain...

Who would you rather have?

I am not an Obama apologist but I think the guy needs time. We give football managers more time to institute change. I think that we will see good come from this but only in the longterm. At least that's what I hope...

[ancient hibee]

Has the U.S. done much to dispel or discourage such an 'entrenched position' in the last fifty or so years, in your view? Or maybe constantly reinforce it...

I think what people fail to understand is that the US on deciding what actions to take does so on the basis of what is good for the US.Obviously they are wrong as often as they are right but they are consistent in that viewpoint.

[Nakedmanoncrack]

Leaving Obama aside, read what Pilger has to say in 'Freedom Next Time' about post-apartheid South Africa. Apparently because they havent instituted a socialist revolution they are 'worse than apartheid':rolleyes:. And read his ludicrous apologism for the Serbian mass murderers in Yugoslavia, clearly motivated by the fact that the Govt was bombed by NATO. Our enemy's enemy isnt necessarily our friend, John.

Could you please point me towards the sources of your claims?

[Betty Boop]

Could you please point me towards the sources of your claims? What I took from John Pilger was that he disputed the figures, given by Nato. I wouldn't say he was an apologist though. http://www.johnpilger.com/page.asp?partid=376

[LiverpoolHibs]

I think what people fail to understand is that the US on deciding what actions to take does so on the basis of what is good for the US.Obviously they are wrong as often as they are right but they are consistent in that viewpoint.

I'd be surprised if anyone failed to understand that.

[ancient hibee]

I'd be surprised if anyone failed to understand that.
John Pilger does.

[LiverpoolHibs]

John Pilger does.

I wouldn't have thought so.

[hibsbollah]

Could you please point me towards the sources of your claims?

1. John Pilger- 'Freedom Now' 2006, chapter 4 Apartheid Did Not Die p239-351.

and on Yugoslavia from his own website
2.
http://www.johnpilger.com/page.asp?partid=500 .

Most of his sources are the same as Noam Chomsky's, Pilgers idol. Usually Chomsky gets 95% right, but in my opinion both he and Pilger deliberately ignore the fact that the Serbs carried out mass genocide in Kosovo. There are hundreds of sources that prove this is the case. I'm guessing they ignore this because it makes it easier to attack NATOs policy of bombing Serbia.

[Nakedmanoncrack]

Most of his sources are the same as Noam Chomsky's, Pilgers idol. Usually Chomsky gets 95% right, but in my opinion both he and Pilger deliberately ignore the fact that the Serbs carried out mass genocide in Kosovo. There are hundreds of sources that prove this is the case. I'm guessing they ignore this because it makes it easier to attack NATOs policy of bombing Serbia.

How would you define mass genocide?
Atrocities were no doubt commited, overwhelmingly after the NATO bombing commenced.

[hibsbollah]

How would you define mass genocide?
Atrocities were no doubt commited, overwhelmingly after the NATO bombing commenced.

I don't define it as anything, but the UNs International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) did in Serbia's case.

You are right, a lot of the worst massacres happened a few weeks after NATO bombed Belgrade. However, to suggest that NATO was somehow to blame for these atrocities is like saying the RAF was to blame for Auschwitz-Birkenau in 1945. The Serbs were massacring civilans as far back as 1994 in Srebenica.

http://www.hrw.org/en/news/1999/07/26/kosovo-atrocities-recounted-detail

It really bothers me when otherwise intelligent and respected left wing figures like Chomsky go on for all this nonsense.

[Nakedmanoncrack]

I don't define it as anything, but the UNs International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) did in Serbia's case.

You are right, a lot of the worst massacres happened a few weeks after NATO bombed Belgrade. However, to suggest that NATO was somehow to blame for these atrocities is like saying the RAF was to blame for Auschwitz-Birkenau in 1945. The Serbs were massacring civilans as far back as 1994 in Srebenica.

http://www.hrw.org/en/news/1999/07/26/kosovo-atrocities-recounted-detail



Yes but Srebenica is in a different country (Bosnia) and irrelevant to what happened in Kosovo.

[hibsbollah]

Yes but Srebenica is in a different country (Bosnia) and irrelevant to what happened in Kosovo.

Doesn't matter if it was in a different country. Serbian soldiers massacred innocent civilians in Srebenica.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/serb-scorpions-guilty-of-srebrenica-massacre-444190.html

[Nakedmanoncrack]

Doesn't matter if it was in a different country. Serbian soldiers massacred innocent civilians in Srebenica.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/serb-scorpions-guilty-of-srebrenica-massacre-444190.html

Indeed they did and I'm not aware of anyone who denies this (though it's now accepted that the death toll in the Bosnian war was considerably less than the 250,000 routinely accepted at the time).

I don't doubt that Serbs were responsible for massacres in Kosovo too, though clearly not on the scale fabricated at the time in order to sell the NATO bombing. And indeed the United Nations court of course ruled that Serbian troops did not carry out a genocide in Kosovo.

[hibsbollah]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/8052999.stm

Perhaps Pilger was right after all:confused:


Civil liberties groups have reacted angrily to US President Barack Obama's decision to revive military trials for some Guantanamo Bay detainees. Mr Obama has previously denounced the Bush-era judicial system, but in a statement said new safeguards would ensure suspects got a fairer hearing.
New rules include rejecting statements obtained from harsh interrogations and limitations on using hearsay evidence.
There are still 240 detainees at the US base in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.




Mr Obama halted the controversial military commissions as one of his first acts on taking office in January, saying the US was entering a new era of respecting human rights.

"It's disappointing that Obama is seeking to revive rather than end this failed experiment," said Jonathan Hafetz, a national security attorney at the American Civil Liberties Union.

"There is no detainee at Guantanamo who cannot be tried and shouldn't be tried in the regular federal courts system. This is perpetuating the Bush administration's misguided detention policy."
Kenneth Roth, head of Human Rights Watch, said: "By resurrecting this failed Bush administration idea, President Obama is backtracking dangerously on his reform agenda."

Campaign statement
On the campaign trail last year, Mr Obama had branded the military commissions "an enormous failure".

But in the statement issued on Friday, he said he had supported their use as one avenue to try detainees, and in 2006 had voted in favour of them.

He said he had opposed the tribunals used by George W Bush's administration because they had failed to establish a legitimate legal framework and undermined swift and certain justice.

The extra safeguards for detainees include a ban on evidence obtained by harsh interrogation; restrictions on hearsay evidence; giving detainees more leeway to choose their own lawyers and protecting detainees who refuse to testify, the statement said.

Mr Obama said he was seeking more time so that the new procedures could be implemented.

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/shared/img/o.gifhttp://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/45781000/jpg/_45781729_007324480-1.jpg
http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/nol/shared/img/v3/inline_dashed_line.gif

Text: Obama statement (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/8052854.stm)
Obama's balancing act (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/8052967.stm)
Justin Webb on Guantanamo (http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/justinwebb/2009/05/pragmatic_on_guantanamo_and_he.html)
Send us your comments (http://newsforums.bbc.co.uk/nol/thread.jspa?forumID=6444)


"These reforms will begin to restore the commissions as a legitimate forum for prosecution, while bringing them in line with the rule of law," he said.

"This is the best way to protect our country, while upholding our deeply held values."

But Geneve Mantri, of Amnesty International, said Mr Obama's message was confusing.
"It was clear from his announcements soon after he reached the White House what he was going to do," he said.
"Now it is somewhat confusing what the administration's standard is or what their policies are."

Zachary Katznelson of Reprieve, which represents a number of Guantanamo Bay detainees, told the BBC that the president was making a "fundamental mistake".

"He is taking a gravely, truly flawed system, tinkering at the edges and hoping that the world is somehow going to see this as legitimate, as open, as fair - it's not going to happen," he said.

In contrast, Mr Obama found support for his decision among his opponents.
"I am pleased that President Obama has now adopted this view," said Republican Senator John McCain, who lost the presidential election to Mr Obama.

Ari Fleischer, who was George W Bush's first press secretary, said President Obama "should acknowledge his campaign criticisms were wrong".
"With some minor changes, he really is following the same path President Bush pursued," he said.

Pragmatic style
The BBC's James Coomarasamy in Washington says that although some are disappointed, for others it is further evidence of Mr Obama's pragmatic style of leadership, one that recognises the need to balance the change he has promised with the reality he has inherited.

Mr Obama has said he wants the Guantanamo Bay camp closed by 2010.

Shortly before his announcement, US officials said that Algerian detainee Lakhdar Boumediene had left Guantanamo Bay for France.

Mr Boumediene was arrested in Bosnia in 2001 and was held for seven years. He was cleared of any wrongdoing in November.

[Betty Boop]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/8052999.stm

Perhaps Pilger was right after all:confused:


Civil liberties groups have reacted angrily to US President Barack Obama's decision to revive military trials for some Guantanamo Bay detainees. Mr Obama has previously denounced the Bush-era judicial system, but in a statement said new safeguards would ensure suspects got a fairer hearing.
New rules include rejecting statements obtained from harsh interrogations and limitations on using hearsay evidence.
There are still 240 detainees at the US base in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.




Mr Obama halted the controversial military commissions as one of his first acts on taking office in January, saying the US was entering a new era of respecting human rights.

"It's disappointing that Obama is seeking to revive rather than end this failed experiment," said Jonathan Hafetz, a national security attorney at the American Civil Liberties Union.

"There is no detainee at Guantanamo who cannot be tried and shouldn't be tried in the regular federal courts system. This is perpetuating the Bush administration's misguided detention policy."
Kenneth Roth, head of Human Rights Watch, said: "By resurrecting this failed Bush administration idea, President Obama is backtracking dangerously on his reform agenda."

Campaign statement
On the campaign trail last year, Mr Obama had branded the military commissions "an enormous failure".

But in the statement issued on Friday, he said he had supported their use as one avenue to try detainees, and in 2006 had voted in favour of them.

He said he had opposed the tribunals used by George W Bush's administration because they had failed to establish a legitimate legal framework and undermined swift and certain justice.

The extra safeguards for detainees include a ban on evidence obtained by harsh interrogation; restrictions on hearsay evidence; giving detainees more leeway to choose their own lawyers and protecting detainees who refuse to testify, the statement said.

Mr Obama said he was seeking more time so that the new procedures could be implemented.

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/shared/img/o.gifhttp://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/45781000/jpg/_45781729_007324480-1.jpg
http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/nol/shared/img/v3/inline_dashed_line.gif

Text: Obama statement (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/8052854.stm)
Obama's balancing act (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/8052967.stm)
Justin Webb on Guantanamo (http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/justinwebb/2009/05/pragmatic_on_guantanamo_and_he.html)
Send us your comments (http://newsforums.bbc.co.uk/nol/thread.jspa?forumID=6444)


"These reforms will begin to restore the commissions as a legitimate forum for prosecution, while bringing them in line with the rule of law," he said.

"This is the best way to protect our country, while upholding our deeply held values."

But Geneve Mantri, of Amnesty International, said Mr Obama's message was confusing.
"It was clear from his announcements soon after he reached the White House what he was going to do," he said.
"Now it is somewhat confusing what the administration's standard is or what their policies are."

Zachary Katznelson of Reprieve, which represents a number of Guantanamo Bay detainees, told the BBC that the president was making a "fundamental mistake".

"He is taking a gravely, truly flawed system, tinkering at the edges and hoping that the world is somehow going to see this as legitimate, as open, as fair - it's not going to happen," he said.

In contrast, Mr Obama found support for his decision among his opponents.
"I am pleased that President Obama has now adopted this view," said Republican Senator John McCain, who lost the presidential election to Mr Obama.

Ari Fleischer, who was George W Bush's first press secretary, said President Obama "should acknowledge his campaign criticisms were wrong".
"With some minor changes, he really is following the same path President Bush pursued," he said.

Pragmatic style
The BBC's James Coomarasamy in Washington says that although some are disappointed, for others it is further evidence of Mr Obama's pragmatic style of leadership, one that recognises the need to balance the change he has promised with the reality he has inherited.

Mr Obama has said he wants the Guantanamo Bay camp closed by 2010.

Shortly before his announcement, US officials said that Algerian detainee Lakhdar Boumediene had left Guantanamo Bay for France.

Mr Boumediene was arrested in Bosnia in 2001 and was held for seven years. He was cleared of any wrongdoing in November.
Same old, I am surprised you thought any different. :grr:

[LiverpoolHibs]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/8052999.stm

Perhaps Pilger was right after all:confused:


Civil liberties groups have reacted angrily to US President Barack Obama's decision to revive military trials for some Guantanamo Bay detainees. Mr Obama has previously denounced the Bush-era judicial system, but in a statement said new safeguards would ensure suspects got a fairer hearing.
New rules include rejecting statements obtained from harsh interrogations and limitations on using hearsay evidence.
There are still 240 detainees at the US base in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.




Mr Obama halted the controversial military commissions as one of his first acts on taking office in January, saying the US was entering a new era of respecting human rights.

"It's disappointing that Obama is seeking to revive rather than end this failed experiment," said Jonathan Hafetz, a national security attorney at the American Civil Liberties Union.

"There is no detainee at Guantanamo who cannot be tried and shouldn't be tried in the regular federal courts system. This is perpetuating the Bush administration's misguided detention policy."
Kenneth Roth, head of Human Rights Watch, said: "By resurrecting this failed Bush administration idea, President Obama is backtracking dangerously on his reform agenda."

Campaign statement
On the campaign trail last year, Mr Obama had branded the military commissions "an enormous failure".

But in the statement issued on Friday, he said he had supported their use as one avenue to try detainees, and in 2006 had voted in favour of them.

He said he had opposed the tribunals used by George W Bush's administration because they had failed to establish a legitimate legal framework and undermined swift and certain justice.

The extra safeguards for detainees include a ban on evidence obtained by harsh interrogation; restrictions on hearsay evidence; giving detainees more leeway to choose their own lawyers and protecting detainees who refuse to testify, the statement said.

Mr Obama said he was seeking more time so that the new procedures could be implemented.

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/shared/img/o.gifhttp://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/45781000/jpg/_45781729_007324480-1.jpg
http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/nol/shared/img/v3/inline_dashed_line.gif

Text: Obama statement (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/8052854.stm)
Obama's balancing act (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/8052967.stm)
Justin Webb on Guantanamo (http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/justinwebb/2009/05/pragmatic_on_guantanamo_and_he.html)
Send us your comments (http://newsforums.bbc.co.uk/nol/thread.jspa?forumID=6444)


"These reforms will begin to restore the commissions as a legitimate forum for prosecution, while bringing them in line with the rule of law," he said.

"This is the best way to protect our country, while upholding our deeply held values."

But Geneve Mantri, of Amnesty International, said Mr Obama's message was confusing.
"It was clear from his announcements soon after he reached the White House what he was going to do," he said.
"Now it is somewhat confusing what the administration's standard is or what their policies are."

Zachary Katznelson of Reprieve, which represents a number of Guantanamo Bay detainees, told the BBC that the president was making a "fundamental mistake".

"He is taking a gravely, truly flawed system, tinkering at the edges and hoping that the world is somehow going to see this as legitimate, as open, as fair - it's not going to happen," he said.

In contrast, Mr Obama found support for his decision among his opponents.
"I am pleased that President Obama has now adopted this view," said Republican Senator John McCain, who lost the presidential election to Mr Obama.

Ari Fleischer, who was George W Bush's first press secretary, said President Obama "should acknowledge his campaign criticisms were wrong".
"With some minor changes, he really is following the same path President Bush pursued," he said.

Pragmatic style
The BBC's James Coomarasamy in Washington says that although some are disappointed, for others it is further evidence of Mr Obama's pragmatic style of leadership, one that recognises the need to balance the change he has promised with the reality he has inherited.

Mr Obama has said he wants the Guantanamo Bay camp closed by 2010.

Shortly before his announcement, US officials said that Algerian detainee Lakhdar Boumediene had left Guantanamo Bay for France.

Mr Boumediene was arrested in Bosnia in 2001 and was held for seven years. He was cleared of any wrongdoing in November.

I was just about to post this. Does this mean you've come round to the 'crushing cynicism' position? :greengrin

[--------]

Don't patronise me.

I respect a lot of the things you have to say on here about a lot of different subjects but you seem to be coming out with patter like this more and more if people aren't as knowledable as you about certain things and I for one don't like being spoken to like an arse.



The idea the the war in Afghanistan has anything whatsoever to do with drugs on the streets is just one lie put out by the US and UK governments to justify their presence in the country.

The fact is that there's a huge demand for heroin and cocaine in the UK and the US, and as long as that demand exists, someone will step up to supply it. Even the publicised "victories" when British or US Customs or police intercept major shipments do no good - the street value of the shipments that get through simply goes up, and the customers pay the higher prices because they have to.

The "War on Drugs" has been used by the Yanquis to justify any amount of interference and bullying of smaller countries all over the world, ever since Vietnam. Now we're doing it too.

However, having read that post you're complaining about over, I apologise. I should have expressed myself differently.

[Betty Boop]

The idea the the war in Afghanistan has anything whatsoever to do with drugs on the streets is just one lie put out by the US and UK governments to justify their presence in the country.

The fact is that there's a huge demand for heroin and cocaine in the UK and the US, and as long as that demand exists, someone will step up to supply it. Even the publicised "victories" when British or US Customs or police intercept major shipments do no good - the street value of the shipments that get through simply goes up, and the customers pay the higher prices because they have to.

The "War on Drugs" has been used by the Yanquis to justify any amount of interference and bullying of smaller countries all over the world, ever since Vietnam. Now we're doing it too.

However, having read that post you're complaining about over, I apologise. I should have expressed myself differently. In fact the Taliban had eradicated most of the poppy cultivation, before the invasion of Afghanistan.

[--------]

In fact the Taliban had eradicated most of the poppy cultivation, before the invasion of Afghanistan.


Exactly. :agree:

If we were ever thinking of trying to do anything about the heroin supply, we've kinda cocked it up...

Things are now way worse than they were under the Taliban.

And I can't quite work out why we should consider that it's OK for Afghans (or anyone else) to get killed or mutilated just because people in THIS country and the States have a problem with dope 'n coke.... :confused:

[hibsbollah]

I was just about to post this. Does this mean you've come round to the 'crushing cynicism' position? :greengrin

Hope is a cruel mistress:grr:
I'm comfy being a cynic, I can live with it:greengrin

[Betty Boop]

Obama's plans for "Prolonged Detention" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1uuWVHT1WUY&eurl=http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article22690.htm&feature=player_embedded :shocked:

[--------]

LH, I like to read what you have to say and have a lot of time for your opinions on here but to me all this reads like is a dig at Obama, you may not see it this way but for the author to even hint that he is no more than a glossed up version of Bush is nonsense.


Obama's plans for "Prolonged Detention" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1uuWVHT1WUY&eurl=http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article22690.htm&feature=player_embedded :shocked:

"No more than a glossed up version of Bush"? "Nonsense"? :cool2:

Seems to me that the case is proven beyond reasonable doubt.

Prolonged detention - without charge, without trial, without term....

But I have to admit he carries it off beautifully.

Doesn't miss a beat.

"Rule of law" - nice phrase.

Pity it's meaningless when BO says it.

[hibsbollah]

Obama's plans for "Prolonged Detention" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1uuWVHT1WUY&eurl=http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article22690.htm&feature=player_embedded :shocked:

Some of Rachel Maddow's analysis is spot on, some of it is a bit embellished (the bit about 5 to 10 years prolonged detention is very misleading, Obama never said that), but theres no doubt its a bit worrying from a libertarian point of view. I prefer to believe the analysis of the same speech here, which acknowledges the balancing act he faces, especially when dealing with public relations when he has nutters like Cheney waiting to attack any perceived weakness. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/may/21/obama-cheney-guantanamo-national-security

[RyeSloan]

Some of Rachel Maddow's analysis is spot on, some of it is a bit embellished (the bit about 5 to 10 years prolonged detention is very misleading, Obama never said that), but theres no doubt its a bit worrying from a libertarian point of view. I prefer to believe the analysis of the same speech here, which acknowledges the balancing act he faces, especially when dealing with public relations when he has nutters like Cheney waiting to attack any perceived weakness. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/may/21/obama-cheney-guantanamo-national-security

Exactly....it's a ****in mess that doesn't have a simple answer, I'm not surprosed Obama is struggling to be entirely aligned to his stated values on this as from what I can see it is almost impossible due to the unique nature of Gitmo and it's inhabitants......

What is clear tho is how much a fud Cheney is...how he can not only defend his administrations actions but call Obama weak and dangerous for attempting to clear some of them up is pretty staggering IMHO.

[Betty Boop]

Smile On The Face Of The Tiger
http://informationclearinghouse.info/article22810.htm

[hibsbollah]

Smile On The Face Of The Tiger
http://informationclearinghouse.info/article22810.htm

As usual, Pilger chucks about lots of (true) facts to prove an unrelated point. At some point he should acknowledge that Obama has realpolitik to deal with.

Much more balanced assessment here of his speech, and how far it has moved from George Dubya.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/jun/05/obama-israel-cairo-speech