Mark Stapleton

I think closing Gitmo is a symbolic gesture, designed to decieve the public into believing change is occuring. That was the catchphrase.

I picked out what I think were the best parts from the text of Obama's inauguration speech: http://edition.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/01/20...tics/index.html On this day, we come to proclaim an end to the petty grievances and false promises, the recriminations and worn-out dogmas, that for far too long have strangled our politics. Hooray! Now can he put his money where his mouth is? Nor is the question before us whether the market is a force for good or ill. Its power to generate wealth and expand freedom is unmatched, but this crisis has reminded us that without a watchful eye, the market can spin out of control -- and that a nation cannot prosper long when it favors only the prosperous. I hope he can match the rhetoric with the appropriate initiatives the rhetoric calls for--genuine regulatory oversight of the markets and genuine reform of the tax system. For we know that our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness. We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers. Hooray--at last the nonbelievers get a look in. To those who cling to power through corruption and deceit and the silencing of dissent, know that you are on the wrong side of history; but that we will extend a hand if you are willing to unclench your fist. Do you get the message, Israel? To the people of poor nations, we pledge to work alongside you to make your farms flourish and let clean waters flow; to nourish starved bodies and feed hungry minds. And to those nations like ours that enjoy relative plenty, we say we can no longer afford indifference to suffering outside our borders; nor can we consume the world's resources without regard to effect. For the world has changed, and we must change with it. Indeed. If Obama intends to match rhetoric with action, he'll encounter strong bureaucratic resistance, especially from the MIC and the other powerful lobbies corrupting the American political system. That's why it's important the public supports him in this battle. If he can bring meaningful change, the rest of the West will follow suit, imo. It looks like he's our only hope.

I'm wondering about that. I get the impression that every US politician has to be "god fearing" or they won't be elected. Perhaps he just seems to be that way, to placate the religious right? America has a very strong religious tradition although I read recently that the number people in America who have rejected religion has doubled in the last 5 or 6 years. Obama quotes the bible a lot in his speeches, but so did Kennedy and it didn't effect his decisions in Government. People who are too religious are too irrational for an office as important as the Presidency, imo. The religious conviction blinds their common sense and reason. George W Bush was a religious whacko, although he had no common sense to begin with.

The way I see it, Obama has the potential to be a great President. I reckon he might make some early mistakes but he seems like a quick learner, who will improve with experience, like JFK. He's got a sharp and open mind, and has made a career of working in poor neighbourhoods, and there'll be plenty of those. The problem is that he seems too religious, although he might be capable of overcoming that handicap. He's the exact opposite of his predecessor.

This "historical analysis" is as honest and believable as Big Tobacco's "scientific analysis" that nicotine is not addictive. Strike 2!

“If I were an Arab leader, I would never sign an agreement with Israel. It is normal; we have taken their country. It is true God promised it to us, but how could that interest them? Our God is not theirs. There has been Anti - Semitism, the Nazis, Hitler, Auschwitz, but was that their fault ? They see but one thing: we have come and we have stolen their country. Why would they accept that?” Israel's first Prime Minister, David Ben-Gurion. “We must use terror, assassination, intimidation, land confiscation, and the cutting of all social services to rid the Galilee of its Arab population.” DB-G again. http://thinkexist.com/quotation/we_must_us...ion/346611.html What is forgotten today is that the Jewish terrorists preceeded the Arab terrorists. When Israeli leaders stand up and try justifying their actions as necessary in order to defeat terror, the irony can only be described as tragic. Terror is precisely what Israel used to get their country established in the first place. Israel has just killed about 400 women and children, with a few aid workers thrown in, in order to fight 'terror'--rockets launched from Gaza which has resulted in an annual Israeli death toll of about 2.5. The Palestinians have been dispossessed, imprisoned, starved and massacred. To Israel and it's pathetic supporters any Palestinian dissent is........TERROR!

That article offers a poor analogy in asking what Americans would do if Zionists wanted to establish their own state in America. To begin with, there were no Jews in America before the "white man" came, only Indians. But there were Jews in Palestine before the "Palestinians." There were two Jewish states there, Israel and Judea. The Romans kicked out the Jews, but centuries later some of their descendants came back to Palestine looking for a homeland. The idea was to establish two states, Israel and Palestine, but the Palestinians refused, and the rest, as they say, is history. Now if you want an American analogy to the Gaza problem, here's one. I think the analogy stands better than your dismissal of it, Ron. The analogy asked what would Americans do TODAY if forced to accept a separate Jewish state within their country. It's true that Jewish people occupied Palestine in the past, as you say, but there were also many non-Jewish custodians of that land over the past 5000 years, as the other link indicated. You can't just lob on the doorstep of a country and say "We were here 2000 years ago, in between the Roman Empire and the Caliphate, so guess what---we've come back to claim it again." And you neatly sidestepped the question, Ron. What would you, as an American, do if you were FORCED to accept a new and separate state--not necessarily Jewish--within America. And don't forget, a foreign colonial power is writing the new rules. A considered answer would be nice, rather than a blithe dismissal as 'a poor analogy'.

The history of the conflict in a nutshell, from the Lawrence of Cyberia site: http://lawrenceofcyberia.blogs.com/news/2008/12/what-if.html This is good. The past 5000 years of the region's history in a 90 second flashmap. From LOC again, via Syd Walker's blog (highly recommended): http://sydwalker.info/blog/2009/01/16/3000...-in-90-seconds/

It will be interesting to see how he fares. Obama's term may follow a similar pattern to that of JFK, hopefully with a different ending.

No problems, Evan. I'm still optimistic about Obama's intentions. It's the political system and its corrupt nature which is a cause for concern. But even a corrupt system can occasionally throw up a good one.

I know. I'm wishing out loud a bit here. Although JFK set a precedent as a leader who tried to take control and set the agenda himself. Mark / Jack, That is what I am talking about; the man hasn't even taken office and he's already been tried, sentenced and condemned. After 6 months I think it could be fair to criticize him if he hasn't met your expectations, but even before inauguration? Evan, I'm still hopeful that Obama might bring some meaningful change in direction for the US, although I'm not overly confident that this will occur. I certainly haven't tried, sentenced and condemned Obama.

I know. I'm wishing out loud a bit here. Although JFK set a precedent as a leader who tried to take control and set the agenda himself.

It's possible but not likely, imo. The point is, except for what Obama has said during the campaign, and much of what he said was risk averse politics, we don't know what he will do when he becomes President. Many of his appointments might be the result of deals stitched up to satisfy lobby groups and political donors. In the end, Obama has the power. He will be forced to oversee the biggest drop in living standards in US history, but FDR was able to manage a similar situation successfully. His biggest hurdle will be to dismantle the influence of the power elites--the arms manufacturing lobby foremost--which cause such wealth inequality within the US. The power elites and their lobbies are entrenched in the American system so he would need to go outside the system to achieve anything worthwhile. i.e directly to the people. A system of citizens referenda, like the current Swiss model, for major policy decisions would be worth a try, imo: http://direct-democracy.geschichte-schweiz...eferendums.html US foreign policy is such a disastrous mess that I think his best option is to use his current global popularity and support to bring about the necessary changes, and go over the heads of the Western media and big money interests. JFK would be a useful model for Obama in changing the direction of foreign policy, imo. Of course, this means he would risk sharing JFK's fate. And no foreign policy changes can work unless he detaches the US from its passionate attachment to Israel. Israel is a pariah state and this attachment has almost destroyed America's reputation. If he can develop an objective ME policy, the rest becomes a lot easier, imo. I don't really think he can do all that, but you never know.

Barack Obama: The Naked Emperor Lies of Obama Obama and the left Barack Obama the antichrist? Deep Politics Forum The Bush-Obama National Security Strategy etc, etc Yes I see. I would describe the first four as ratbag sites, the DPF thread as a legitimate discussion about Obama's antecedents and the last link is not really criticism of Obama but rather a criticism of the makeup of his new team and its probable foreign policy direction. I agree it's unfair to be too critical of Obama at this early stage but there are some worrying signs emerging. Hilary Clinton's comments at the Senate confirmation hearings were a disturbing sign that Obama could be bullied into conforming with the Congress position of refusing to speak with the democratically elected Government of the Palestinian Authority in Gaza. On one hand she stated that the US would use all diplomatic (and military) options at its disposal to solve the problems in the ME and then she promptly rules out any discussion with Hamas. When one looks at some of Obama's appointments, one is entitled to be worried. A paradigm shift in US foreign policy appears unlikely.

Who's atacking Obama?

Maybe Blair is waiting until Israel "has achieved all it's military goals".

That would be a good idea Terry but the problem is that Israel have never officially confirmed they have nuclear weapons. That's how they avoided the problem of UN inspections. With Israel, it's all about opacity. I'd like to see the US cut off all aid to Israel, but it's very unlikely considering Congress is under the control of the Israel lobby.

I dunno. Boycotts, isolation, some form of global collective action. I kinda thought Obama might have something to say. Of course, he's tied by Congress and Congress is tied up by the Israel Lobby. Or maybe I'm just spreading false rumors, David. Certainly peaceful. You don't always need to use force to be forceful. What do you suggest? Business as usual?

Precisely.

What a long-winded journey it was to get to your core belief. And I see you took the shortcut to moral bankruptcy. The current Israeli military campaign--apparently six months in the planning (so much for the claim that the Palestinians started it)--was the final straw for me. There exists within the Israeli leadership a malignancy which now threatens the future of the planet. It's been stated here and elsewhere that the majority of Jews living in Israel don't support this campaign and I believe that. However, this is scant compensation for the Palestinians and the rest of the world. If the majority of Jews want peace with their neighbours, and Israel is the shiny democracy that some would have us believe it is, then why is the IDF still running amok after all these years? The answer is that Israel is a democracy in name only, imo. The great majority of Jews seem as powerless as the rest of the world in stopping the longest running ethnic cleansing in modern history. The other point to make is that if part of the purpose of this military campaign is the February election campaign, then's what's to be said about the electorate they are playing up to? Who's doing all the cheering in Tel Aviv? Perhaps the military and political leaders in Israel are also looking for cheers from certain people in the US. Here in Australia, most election campaigns feature a putrid public Dutch Auction between political rivals over who will be the toughest on crime. It seems to me that Israel's electoral auction is over who will be the toughest on Palestine. Do you want to debate these issues or just throw insults from the sideline, Andy?

It's all over your posts. In this thread alone; post #26, "Hamas weeks long attack from schools and churches". That's rubbish Bill; Post #36, "Hamas terrorists don't want to create a community". Also rubbish; Post #48, "If the majority of people vote for Islamic rule, where women cannot attend school, centuries old monuments are destroyed....". Who knows what you're talking about here, Bill. Many of your posts are full of fear and hatred for Islam. You're like a walking Fox News editorial. You seem to think that all the countries in the ME need Israel to take them over, otherwise Islamic fundamentalism will be endemic. It's as silly as me claiming that all Christians are fire and brimstone lunatics like Pat Robertson. That's what I mean, Bill.

Good point. And as John Simkin and others have pointed out, the only sure outcome from this genocide is a new generation of Palestinians committed to the destruction of Israel. Israel and its apologists claim that launching rockets into their territory is unacceptable. Cigdem posted that 20 Israeli deaths have resulted in the last ten years. I have read it is 17 deaths in the past seven. Either way, it's about 2.5 deaths per year. This is a miniscule price to pay for the misery heaped on these people (Israel's neighbours) over the last 100 years. Fairminded observers can see this because they are not blinded by the religious hatreds evident in the posts of Bill K and David H. As this piece from Diane Mason outlines, the Jewish population in Palestine at the time of the first settlements in the late 19th century was about 3.3%, according to the census of the Ottoman Empire. http://lawrenceofcyberia.blogs.com/news/2008/12/what-if.html The Palestinians have witnessed the colonial powers bestow their land to a people whose brutality and bellicosity have become a unique trademark. They have become not only strangers in their own land, but prisoners in a modern day concentration camp. Of course, Israel has yet to abide by UNSC Res. 242 and 338. They never will, imo. Israel always claims their security is at stake but they are the regional superpower, with nuclear weapons to boot. One must ask, how much security does Israel require? How dare Israel demand that the Palestinians renounce terror (i.e. resistance) and pay homage to their brutal overlords. Any who refuse to pay homage, like the democratically elected Hamas, are immediately denounced as terrorists by Israel and its mainstream media partners. By this definition, I would be classified as a terrorist, too. Moreover, for the last two or three years Israel has been pushing the US to attack Iran, brainwashing the world into believing that Iran is a threat to global security. What is evident however, is that it is Israel who is the greatest threat to global peace. An attack on Iran would enflame the entire region instantly and almost certainly gain the attention of Russia and China. Thus it is Israel who are willing to risk a global conflagration in order to suit their own selfish ends, once again. A mature and peace loving Israel would recognise that they were fortunate indeed to be granted a new home in the land of their biblical ancestors. They would behave like responsible residents in the region and respect the rights of their less powerful neighbours. They are the newest kid on the block, after all. Instead, they use cluster bombs and phosphorous. They slaughter the children of their neighbours. Israel, in their present form, have forfeited their right to exist, imo.

The Palestinians elected Hamas in a fair election. Israel won't accept the result. Are you in favor of democracy or not? Answer the question.

A very hazy couple of sentences. So are you implying that Palestinians don't want to live and work and create a community? What do you mean? No, they're not hazy. I mean the Hamas terrorists don't want to create a community. Not if they take over Gaza, impose Islamic law and launch missiles into neighbors back yards. I think the Israel and the Palestinians want the same thing, to live and work in a peaceful community. BK Well Hamas won a free and fair election scrutineered by international observers, so the Palestinians disagree with you about Hamas. I thought you were in favor of democracy. And if Hamas are terrorists, then so are Israel. Examples of terrorism by Jewish groups are well known and easy to research. Maybe we should just call everyone a terrorist, eh? Anyhow, did you hear the one about the invasion of conquest designed to steal Palestine's offshore gas reserves? http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?con...a&aid=11680