Advertisement
Obama Lays Out Plans for Continued War
By Steven Argue
In a July 14, 2008 New York Times Op Ed, Barack Obama says:
"As I’ve said many times, we must be as careful getting out of Iraq as we were careless getting in. We can safely redeploy our combat brigades at a pace that would remove them in 16 months. That would be the summer of 2010 — two years from now, and more than seven years after the war began. After this redeployment, a residual force in Iraq would perform limited missions: going after any remnants of Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia, protecting American service members and, so long as the Iraqis make political progress, training Iraqi security forces."
In other words, he does not plan to get all of the troops out of Iraq and he will only get most of the troops out in two years. And what does he explain he will do with these troops? Redeploy them. Redeployed where? His rhetoric has been clear: Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Iran.
Obama goes on to call for a surge in Afghanistan as well as war in Pakistan:
"Ending the war [in Iraq] is essential to meeting our broader strategic goals, starting in Afghanistan and Pakistan [...] As president, I would pursue a new strategy, and begin by providing at least two additional combat brigades to support our effort in Afghanistan. We need more troops, more helicopters [...]"
U.S. intervention has also been very bad for the people of Pakistan. It is US intervention that has kept a long series of dictators in power there. The US has no right to intervene against those fighting that dictatorship that it labels "terrorists". Likewise, it is US intervention in support of a long series of Pakistani dictators that is the cause of Bhutto's death, brutal repression against the majority, exploitation, and poverty, all of which has resulted in rebellion against the Pakistani government. The US has already harmed the Pakistani people enough with massive aid to dictators and would do more harm by sending in troops.
NO TO OBAMA’S PROPOSED MILITARY INTERVENTION IN PAKISTAN!
Massive U.S. intervention in Afghanistan began in 1978 and continues to this day. The ongoing war in Afghanistan continues to kill thousands of Afghan civilians and cause extreme suffering due to horrendous injuries, the displacement of people from their homes and livelihoods, home invasions, sexual abuse, arbitrary arrests and torture, and the general humiliation of the Afghani people.
As this author stated for Liberation News on September 12, 2001:
“Americans watched in horror as the World Trade Center collapsed. Yet it was a horror no different from what the U.S. government has done with it's bombing of civilian populations in Iraq, Yugoslavia, Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos, and Korea. The U.S. bombings of just these countries, not to mention many other U.S. acts of war, murdered millions of civilians. Terror against civilians is never justified…
“Today the clerical fascists of the Taliban rule Afghanistan. The CIA put them in power with billions of dollars in U.S. military aid. This massive U.S. intervention in Afghanistan was in opposition to the revolutionary PDPA government that came to power in 1978 on issues of promoting women’s rights and land reform. Literacy campaigns began teaching the poor and women how to read and write.
“Foreign religious fanatics and wealthy defenders of the old feudal system came together in a terrorist organization called the Mujahideen. With billions of dollars in assistance from the U.S. [starting under the Jimmy Carter presidency] these fanatical cutthroats waged a holy war that included killing women for teaching little girls how to read and write and throwing acid into the faces of women who had become liberated from the veil. The Taliban came to power as a result of this U.S. intervention.
“Will a U.S. war now against the Taliban and former CIA aid recipient Osama Bin Laden set things straight? No. It will be the people of Afghanistan who suffer death and destruction from war as the U.S. attempts to install a puppet government friendly to U.S. corporate (oil) interests.” Steven Argue, Liberation News, September 12, 2001
The Taliban was put in power by U.S. intervention. U.S. occupation today is a cause for war and continues to keep an extremely reactionary religious government in power. Afghanistan had secular governments with much wider women's rights before the U.S. began its massive intervention in Afghanistan in the 1970's. All U.S. imposed governments have been religious and anti-women. In Afghanistan, the Afghanis are better qualified to solve the problems caused by U.S. imperialism than U.S. imperialism is.
Yet rather than get out of Afghanistan Obama is proposing more troops, more helicopters, and more war.
NO TO OBAMA”S PROPOSED SURGE IN AFGHANISTAN!
U.S. OUT OF AFGHANISTAN NOW!
In addition, at AIPAC, Obama’s speech laid the groundwork for war with Iran:
“The Iranian regime supports violent extremists and challenges us across the region. It pursues a nuclear capability that could spark a dangerous arms race and raise the prospect of a transfer of nuclear know-how to terrorists. [...] The danger from Iran is grave, it is real, and my goal will be to eliminate this threat.”
A war on a major oil producing nation under the imperialist excuse of weapons of mass destruction. Sound familiar? Bush would have a good case for a charge of plagiarism against Obama.
And what will the Iranians think of more imperialist intervention?
In 1953 the CIA overthrew the democratically elected government of Mohammed Mossadegh in Iran and put the brutal dictatorship of the Shah in power. Mossadegh had plans to nationalize the Iranian oil fields, a plan that would have taken a good chunk of the oil profits out of the private control of major international oil companies. Such nationalizations have greatly helped people in other countries, such as Venezuela, where oil wealth is used to better the conditions of the poor and provide needed programs like healthcare.
The CIA sponsored overthrow of the Mossadegh government paved the way for 26 years of dictatorship under the U.S. backed Shah. Freedom of speech did not exist under the Shah, and the CIA participated in the torture of political opponents to the Shah. Meanwhile, U.S. oil corporations made massive profits from Iranian oil while the vast majority of the Iranian people lived in extreme poverty and did not benefit from the oil wealth.
The Iranian people rightly saw the Shah as a puppet of U.S. imperialism, and finally overthrew his dictatorship in 1979. Unfortunately, repression was so bad under the Shah that the only place that people could organize opposition was in the Mosques. This gave the Mullahs a tremendous advantage in taking control of the revolution. The Islamic nature of the revolution led to a deterioration of women's rights and socialists, many of whom had naively supported the Islamic Revolution, were executed by the clerical fascist state.
Despite the brutal nature of the new Iranian government, in that respect the same as the old regime the U.S. had supported, the U.S. was not satisfied. The new regime nationalized the Iranian oil fields under government control. In addition, the new government was full of anti-imperialist rhetoric and took American hostages; a natural result of 26 years of U.S. imposed dictatorship and exploitation. The U.S. government hated the Iranian revolution most for nationalizing the oil, and they feared that the Iranian Revolution may become an influence for similar anti-imperialist revolutions in the region.
As a result, the U.S. encouraged then ally, Saddam Hussein to send Iraqi troops to invade Iran. During the war, the U.S. armed both sides, but most armed Iraq and provided Iraq with military intelligence. The Iraqi invasion of Iran began on September 22, 1980 and the war continued until 1988. As a result of the war, between half million and a million and a half people died. This U.S. support to Iraq also helped enable Iraq to murder between 50,000 and 100,000 Kurds in the Anfal campaign of 1988. At the time, the U.S. corporate media was silent about this crime, and only exposed it later when U.S. alliances changed.
So U.S. intervention against Iran imposed decades of dictatorship, repression, war, exploitation, poverty, and, just in the Iran-Iraq war alone, the deaths of around a million Iranian people. Like Iraq, U.S. troops on the ground in Iran will not be treated as liberators.
The Iranian working class has many scores to settle with their Iranian rulers, but as bad as the current regime in Iran is, Iranians need only look across the border into Iraq to see that U.S. occupation will be much worse. War, a puppet capitalist regime, a million dead, torture, millions of refugees, and an occupier mainly interested in privatization to loot resources. As Iraq shows, there is no liberation at the hands of U.S. occupation. And as the CIA’s Shah showed, there is no liberation under a U.S. imposed puppet. Only anti-imperialist socialist revolution can begin to solve the problems faced by women, ethnic minorities, and the working class of Iran.
NO TO OBAMA’S THREATS AGAINST IRAN!
U.S. HANDS OFF IRAN!
On Iraq, Obama has never promised to fully withdraw. In a debate in September 2007, when asked if he would have U.S. troops out of Iraq by 2013 Barack Obama said "I believe that we should have all our troops out by 2013, but I don't want to make promises not knowing what the situation's going to be three or four years out." ("The Democratic Presidential Debate on MSNBC", New York Times 9/26/07).
The U.S. must leave by air, sea, and land as quickly as possible. U.S. imperialism has created a horrible situation, but that is no excuse to stay, and U.S. troops, Halliburton, etc. are only making matters worse. Over a million Iraqis are dead. These deaths are not just caused by the civil war that the U.S. has ignited, nor are they just caused by the death-squad government that the U.S. has put in power. U.S. guns and bombers are also the direct cause of a large number of deaths. Iraq needs to be turned over to the Iraqi people through immediate withdrawal.
In addition, Obama has directly supported the U.S. war and occupation of Iraq by voting in the Senate to fund it. If it were not for the Democrat votes in congress, the recent $162 billion dollars for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan would have never passed.
This most recent New York Times Op Ed from Obama continues on with a pro-war position. Obama is clear. He wants a gradual redeployment of the majority of troops to fight other wars while calling for continuing keep some troops fighting in Iraq.
On Blackwater mercenaries fighting in Iraq Obama also refuses to support a ban, and promised to continue to use Blackwater when he becomes president (Democracy Now!, June 2, 2008).
The US government has no right to be in Iraq murdering, torturing, and humiliating their people while making massive profits for the military industry and other contractors. The U.S. is attempting to privatize Iraqi oil to eliminate Iraqi control over this most important resource and give U.S. and British oil companies control over the oil. The puppet government the US has set up is a death squad government that should not be protected by U.S. troops. Continued occupation of Iraq is a continued attempt to subvert the national will of the Iraqi people and it must end immediately, yet Obama's plan is to only leave, partially, after a couple years, and this, assuredly, only after the oil law has been passed and oil ownership handed over to the multi-nationals. This, as Obama's own use of the term "redeployment" indicates, will free U.S. troops up for other oil wars.
NO TO OBAMA’S “PHASED REDEPLOYMENT”!
U.S. OUT OF IRAQ AND AFGHANISTAN NOW!
U.S. HANDS OFF THE WORLD!
Another major cause for war in the Middle East is U.S. military support to the racist regime in Israel. Obama promises to continue this practice. At AIPAC Obama promised:
“Defense cooperation between the United States and Israel is a model of success, and must be deepened. As president, I will implement a Memorandum of Understanding that provides $30 billion in assistance to Israel over the next decade — investments to Israel's security that will not be tied to any other nation. First, we must approve the foreign aid request for 2009. Going forward, we can enhance our cooperation on missile defense. We should export military equipment to our ally Israel under the same guidelines as NATO.”
This despite Israel’s recent war of aggression against Lebanon, a war that, if it were not for the heroic resistance of Hezbollah fighters, would have ended in another Israeli occupation like Israel’s brutal occupation of Lebanon that took place in the 1980’s. That occupation included crimes against humanity committed by Israeli and allied Christian Phalangists when they massacred thousands of Palestinians in cold-blood at the Sabra and Chatila refugee camps.
In addition, Obama’s speech made no reference to the suffering faced by the Palestinian people as a result of the creation and continuation of the Jewish state. Israel is a state that created a homeland for one people, through force and violence, by denying the homeland of Palestine’s original inhabitants. Also missing from Obama’s speech was the brutal blockade currently being carried out against Palestinians in Gaza. Obama expressed zero sympathy for the Palestinians and other Arabs, only promises to supply Israel with the weapons to kill more Arabs.
Massive U.S. military aid helps keep the repressive governments of Israel, Egypt, and Saudi Arabia in power. Instead of promising more U.S. military aid, that aid should be cut off to better allow the people of the Middle East to decide their own future.
NO TO OBAMA’S PROMISE OF BILLIONS TO ISRAEL!
Another indicator of where Obama stands on imperialist war is how he sees the past wars of the United States. Of H. W. Bush and his war on Iraq Obama recently stated, "I have enormous sympathy for the foreign policy of George H. W. Bush. I don't have a lot of complaints about their handling of Desert Storm." (Barack Obama, from David Brooks article, "Obama Admires Bush, NY Times, May 16, 2008)
Leading up to that war, Kuwait was slant drilling into Iraqi Ramaila oil fields. Iraq saw this as theft. In addition, the Kuwaiti monarchy went against OPEC quotas and increased oil production by 40%, bringing down the price of oil on the world market, something Saddam Hussein called economic warfare.
Before Iraq invaded Kuwait, Saddam Hussein was, at that time an ally of the United States in the wars against Iran and the Kurds. He had received massive U.S. military backing in those wars. When he assembled troops on the Kuwaiti border, US ambassador April Glaspie met with Saddam Hussein and told him, "We have no opinion on the Arab-Arab conflicts, like your border disagreement with Kuwait."
Saddam Hussein saw this as a green light from his powerful U.S. ally to invade Kuwait. Soon after, he did.
But Saddam Hussein was set up by the United States because the U.S. wanted a war. The reason for this was to prop up the profits of the military industrial complex. The Soviet Union had just fallen, and the military industries needed an excuse to keep spending billions of dollars of our tax dollars on the military.
Saddam Hussein was the perfect boogie-man to meet their needs. The U.S. corporate media pointed out that he had murdered tens of thousands of Kurds, never mentioning why they were silent when the operations were taking place with weapons supplied by the United States.
The U.S. corporate media also claimed that premature babies in Kuwait had been taken out of incubators and left to die so that the incubators could be shipped back to Baghdad. The whole story was a complete fabrication, and the corporate media even admitted it after the war, but the lie served its purpose in swaying many people who otherwise questioned going to war for the repressive Kuwaiti monarchy.
In addition, President H.W. Bush claimed as reason for war, "Within three days, 120,000 Iraqi troops with 850 tanks had poured into Kuwait and moved south to threaten Saudi Arabia. It was then that I decided to act to check that aggression." This was based on supposed Pentagon satellite photos. Yet, from commercial satellite photos acquired by the St. Petersburg Times, this was proven to be a lie, the desert Bush senior and the Pentagon referred to was nothing but empty desert.
While playing up false stories of baby killers and the new Hitler that was going to march across the Middle East, the U.S. corporate media ignored Kuwait’s theft of Iraqi oil as well the historic claim of Iraq to Kuwait, with Kuwait being a construct of British imperialism to divide the territory and limit Iraqi access to the sea.
In addition, the U.S. corporate media completely ignored the repressive nature of the Kuwaiti monarchy that U.S. troops were sent to fight and die for. The vast majority of those living in Kuwait were denied the right to vote and other more basic rights. This included women and people labeled foreigners, many of whom had been in Kuwait for generations. Some who had ancestors in Kuwait prior to 1920 were even denied Kuwaiti citizenship. Palestinian workers built modern Kuwait, but they were kept in second class status. This situation was so bad that many Palestinians aided the Iraqi troops and saw them as a liberation army. After the U.S. re-installed the monarchy, most Kuwaiti Palestinians were driven out of Kuwait.
For women in Kuwait the Iraqi invasion also brought hope. Unlike all of the US supported governments and forces in the Arab World, Iraqi women have many rights found nowhere else in the Arab World except in the Asian republics of the former Soviet Union. Under Saddam Hussein, over 50% of Iraqi doctors were women. Iraqi women were allowed to walk unescorted in the streets. They were allowed to drive. Iraqi women could even freely criticize men. In addition, Iraqi women had the right to work and control their own funds. This was in stark contrast to the treatment of women under the repressive monarchy of Kuwait where women had / have no rights what-so-ever.
In carrying out the war to defend the Kuwaiti monarchy the U.S. used depleted uranium (DU) weapons that have contaminated Iraqi water, soil, and food with radiation. This radiation has caused large numbers of birth defects and other diseases for the Iraqi people. In addition, U.S. soldiers were not given protection and, as a result, became ill in massive numbers with the symptoms of radiation poisoning. Like Agent Orange poisoning in Vietnam, the military brass pretended they had no clue to the cause of this illness that became dubbed “Persian Gulf War Syndrome”. Yet this was later exposed as a lie when reports were made public warning the military brass of the health risks of DU weapons before the war.
Government demographer Beth Osborn Duponte lost her job when she estimated the civilian loss of life in Iraq to be around 83,000, 13,000 directly from U.S. bombing and another 70,000 civilians dead as a result of U.S. targeting of civilian necessities such as water treatment facilities, medical facilities and supplies, and the electric power grid.
In addition, Duponte estimated deaths of Iraqi troops to be around 40,000. Many of the Iraqi troops killed were buried alive. In defense of U.S. actions Col. Lon Maggart said, "People somehow have the notion that burying guys alive is nastier than blowing them up with hand grenades or sticking them in gut with bayonets, well it's not."
So Obama has no problems with Bush targeting civilians, irradiating U.S. troops and the Iraqi people, burying people alive, and re-installing a repressive monarchy in Kuwait. In addition, Obama wants to escalate the war in Afghanistan, send troops into Pakistan, is already threatening Iran with war, will never fully pull out of Iraq and only promises to pull out most troops in two years after an extended gradual re-deployment of troops to other wars, will continue to use murderous Blackwater mercenaries in Iraq, and promises billions in military aid to Israel. Enough said.
Obama will be nominated the presidential candidate of the Democrat Party on August 24-28 at the Democrat Party National Convention (DNC). In opposition to the DNC convention, protests are being organized, with organizers stating:
"On August 24-28, the ruling elite and their defenders will converge in Denver Colorado, in an attempt to recuperate the gains of global social movements and produce another myth of progress. Lip service to global warming, the economic crisis and the war will endow them with the magic to spread amnesia across the hearts and minds of North America... Outside those doors, however, so many will exclaim, smash and sing a harmonious ‘no.’...”
In addition, there will be protests at the equally pro-war Republican National convention being held September 1-4 in Minneapolis, Minnesota.
Although virtually ignored by the corporate press, there are other presidential candidates who are running in opposition to the Democrats and Republicans who are for immediate withdrawal from Iraq and Afghanistan. These include Cynthia McKinney running on the Green Party ticket, Brian Moore of the Socialist Party, and Gloria La Riva on the Party for Socialism and Liberation ticket, and Róger Calero on the Socialist Workers Party ticket. Corporate controlled elections and media assure that these authentic anti-war candidates will not get elected, but these candidacies do help expose people to positions of politicians not controlled by corporate interests and the pro-war Democrat Party machine. In addition, through some of these campaigns, more people become exposed to socialist ideas and the ideas of class struggle methods to bring about change.
A vote for Obama or McCain is a vote for war! So that's what, in active terms, you're really voting for when you vote Democrat or Republican. Those of us voting for third parties, or refusing to vote, will not change the country directly through the elections either, but at least we won’t be dumb enough to vote for own oppressors and exploiters that are waging imperialist war. Instead, we will have the sense to be working for something different.
And those of us in unions should be angry that our hard earned union dues are being squandered on the Democrat Party when that money should instead be put into stronger strike funds to strengthen our ability to fights for better contracts, for socialized medicine, and for bigger strikes against the wars.
Build the Anti-War Movement! For More Strikes for Immediate Withdrawal Like the May 1st ILWU Anti-War Strike That Shut Down 29 Ports! Support Soldiers Refusing to Fight Including the 10,000 U.S. Soldiers Who Have Gone AWOL! Build the Socialist Anti-Imperialist Movement! U.S. Hands off Iran! U.S. Out of Iraq and Afghanistan Now!
This is an article of Liberation News, subscribe free:
lists.riseup.net/www/info/...ation_news
Join the Cool Earth Party
tribes.tribe.net/coolearth
By Steven Argue
In a July 14, 2008 New York Times Op Ed, Barack Obama says:
"As I’ve said many times, we must be as careful getting out of Iraq as we were careless getting in. We can safely redeploy our combat brigades at a pace that would remove them in 16 months. That would be the summer of 2010 — two years from now, and more than seven years after the war began. After this redeployment, a residual force in Iraq would perform limited missions: going after any remnants of Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia, protecting American service members and, so long as the Iraqis make political progress, training Iraqi security forces."
In other words, he does not plan to get all of the troops out of Iraq and he will only get most of the troops out in two years. And what does he explain he will do with these troops? Redeploy them. Redeployed where? His rhetoric has been clear: Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Iran.
Obama goes on to call for a surge in Afghanistan as well as war in Pakistan:
"Ending the war [in Iraq] is essential to meeting our broader strategic goals, starting in Afghanistan and Pakistan [...] As president, I would pursue a new strategy, and begin by providing at least two additional combat brigades to support our effort in Afghanistan. We need more troops, more helicopters [...]"
U.S. intervention has also been very bad for the people of Pakistan. It is US intervention that has kept a long series of dictators in power there. The US has no right to intervene against those fighting that dictatorship that it labels "terrorists". Likewise, it is US intervention in support of a long series of Pakistani dictators that is the cause of Bhutto's death, brutal repression against the majority, exploitation, and poverty, all of which has resulted in rebellion against the Pakistani government. The US has already harmed the Pakistani people enough with massive aid to dictators and would do more harm by sending in troops.
NO TO OBAMA’S PROPOSED MILITARY INTERVENTION IN PAKISTAN!
Massive U.S. intervention in Afghanistan began in 1978 and continues to this day. The ongoing war in Afghanistan continues to kill thousands of Afghan civilians and cause extreme suffering due to horrendous injuries, the displacement of people from their homes and livelihoods, home invasions, sexual abuse, arbitrary arrests and torture, and the general humiliation of the Afghani people.
As this author stated for Liberation News on September 12, 2001:
“Americans watched in horror as the World Trade Center collapsed. Yet it was a horror no different from what the U.S. government has done with it's bombing of civilian populations in Iraq, Yugoslavia, Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos, and Korea. The U.S. bombings of just these countries, not to mention many other U.S. acts of war, murdered millions of civilians. Terror against civilians is never justified…
“Today the clerical fascists of the Taliban rule Afghanistan. The CIA put them in power with billions of dollars in U.S. military aid. This massive U.S. intervention in Afghanistan was in opposition to the revolutionary PDPA government that came to power in 1978 on issues of promoting women’s rights and land reform. Literacy campaigns began teaching the poor and women how to read and write.
“Foreign religious fanatics and wealthy defenders of the old feudal system came together in a terrorist organization called the Mujahideen. With billions of dollars in assistance from the U.S. [starting under the Jimmy Carter presidency] these fanatical cutthroats waged a holy war that included killing women for teaching little girls how to read and write and throwing acid into the faces of women who had become liberated from the veil. The Taliban came to power as a result of this U.S. intervention.
“Will a U.S. war now against the Taliban and former CIA aid recipient Osama Bin Laden set things straight? No. It will be the people of Afghanistan who suffer death and destruction from war as the U.S. attempts to install a puppet government friendly to U.S. corporate (oil) interests.” Steven Argue, Liberation News, September 12, 2001
The Taliban was put in power by U.S. intervention. U.S. occupation today is a cause for war and continues to keep an extremely reactionary religious government in power. Afghanistan had secular governments with much wider women's rights before the U.S. began its massive intervention in Afghanistan in the 1970's. All U.S. imposed governments have been religious and anti-women. In Afghanistan, the Afghanis are better qualified to solve the problems caused by U.S. imperialism than U.S. imperialism is.
Yet rather than get out of Afghanistan Obama is proposing more troops, more helicopters, and more war.
NO TO OBAMA”S PROPOSED SURGE IN AFGHANISTAN!
U.S. OUT OF AFGHANISTAN NOW!
In addition, at AIPAC, Obama’s speech laid the groundwork for war with Iran:
“The Iranian regime supports violent extremists and challenges us across the region. It pursues a nuclear capability that could spark a dangerous arms race and raise the prospect of a transfer of nuclear know-how to terrorists. [...] The danger from Iran is grave, it is real, and my goal will be to eliminate this threat.”
A war on a major oil producing nation under the imperialist excuse of weapons of mass destruction. Sound familiar? Bush would have a good case for a charge of plagiarism against Obama.
And what will the Iranians think of more imperialist intervention?
In 1953 the CIA overthrew the democratically elected government of Mohammed Mossadegh in Iran and put the brutal dictatorship of the Shah in power. Mossadegh had plans to nationalize the Iranian oil fields, a plan that would have taken a good chunk of the oil profits out of the private control of major international oil companies. Such nationalizations have greatly helped people in other countries, such as Venezuela, where oil wealth is used to better the conditions of the poor and provide needed programs like healthcare.
The CIA sponsored overthrow of the Mossadegh government paved the way for 26 years of dictatorship under the U.S. backed Shah. Freedom of speech did not exist under the Shah, and the CIA participated in the torture of political opponents to the Shah. Meanwhile, U.S. oil corporations made massive profits from Iranian oil while the vast majority of the Iranian people lived in extreme poverty and did not benefit from the oil wealth.
The Iranian people rightly saw the Shah as a puppet of U.S. imperialism, and finally overthrew his dictatorship in 1979. Unfortunately, repression was so bad under the Shah that the only place that people could organize opposition was in the Mosques. This gave the Mullahs a tremendous advantage in taking control of the revolution. The Islamic nature of the revolution led to a deterioration of women's rights and socialists, many of whom had naively supported the Islamic Revolution, were executed by the clerical fascist state.
Despite the brutal nature of the new Iranian government, in that respect the same as the old regime the U.S. had supported, the U.S. was not satisfied. The new regime nationalized the Iranian oil fields under government control. In addition, the new government was full of anti-imperialist rhetoric and took American hostages; a natural result of 26 years of U.S. imposed dictatorship and exploitation. The U.S. government hated the Iranian revolution most for nationalizing the oil, and they feared that the Iranian Revolution may become an influence for similar anti-imperialist revolutions in the region.
As a result, the U.S. encouraged then ally, Saddam Hussein to send Iraqi troops to invade Iran. During the war, the U.S. armed both sides, but most armed Iraq and provided Iraq with military intelligence. The Iraqi invasion of Iran began on September 22, 1980 and the war continued until 1988. As a result of the war, between half million and a million and a half people died. This U.S. support to Iraq also helped enable Iraq to murder between 50,000 and 100,000 Kurds in the Anfal campaign of 1988. At the time, the U.S. corporate media was silent about this crime, and only exposed it later when U.S. alliances changed.
So U.S. intervention against Iran imposed decades of dictatorship, repression, war, exploitation, poverty, and, just in the Iran-Iraq war alone, the deaths of around a million Iranian people. Like Iraq, U.S. troops on the ground in Iran will not be treated as liberators.
The Iranian working class has many scores to settle with their Iranian rulers, but as bad as the current regime in Iran is, Iranians need only look across the border into Iraq to see that U.S. occupation will be much worse. War, a puppet capitalist regime, a million dead, torture, millions of refugees, and an occupier mainly interested in privatization to loot resources. As Iraq shows, there is no liberation at the hands of U.S. occupation. And as the CIA’s Shah showed, there is no liberation under a U.S. imposed puppet. Only anti-imperialist socialist revolution can begin to solve the problems faced by women, ethnic minorities, and the working class of Iran.
NO TO OBAMA’S THREATS AGAINST IRAN!
U.S. HANDS OFF IRAN!
On Iraq, Obama has never promised to fully withdraw. In a debate in September 2007, when asked if he would have U.S. troops out of Iraq by 2013 Barack Obama said "I believe that we should have all our troops out by 2013, but I don't want to make promises not knowing what the situation's going to be three or four years out." ("The Democratic Presidential Debate on MSNBC", New York Times 9/26/07).
The U.S. must leave by air, sea, and land as quickly as possible. U.S. imperialism has created a horrible situation, but that is no excuse to stay, and U.S. troops, Halliburton, etc. are only making matters worse. Over a million Iraqis are dead. These deaths are not just caused by the civil war that the U.S. has ignited, nor are they just caused by the death-squad government that the U.S. has put in power. U.S. guns and bombers are also the direct cause of a large number of deaths. Iraq needs to be turned over to the Iraqi people through immediate withdrawal.
In addition, Obama has directly supported the U.S. war and occupation of Iraq by voting in the Senate to fund it. If it were not for the Democrat votes in congress, the recent $162 billion dollars for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan would have never passed.
This most recent New York Times Op Ed from Obama continues on with a pro-war position. Obama is clear. He wants a gradual redeployment of the majority of troops to fight other wars while calling for continuing keep some troops fighting in Iraq.
On Blackwater mercenaries fighting in Iraq Obama also refuses to support a ban, and promised to continue to use Blackwater when he becomes president (Democracy Now!, June 2, 2008).
The US government has no right to be in Iraq murdering, torturing, and humiliating their people while making massive profits for the military industry and other contractors. The U.S. is attempting to privatize Iraqi oil to eliminate Iraqi control over this most important resource and give U.S. and British oil companies control over the oil. The puppet government the US has set up is a death squad government that should not be protected by U.S. troops. Continued occupation of Iraq is a continued attempt to subvert the national will of the Iraqi people and it must end immediately, yet Obama's plan is to only leave, partially, after a couple years, and this, assuredly, only after the oil law has been passed and oil ownership handed over to the multi-nationals. This, as Obama's own use of the term "redeployment" indicates, will free U.S. troops up for other oil wars.
NO TO OBAMA’S “PHASED REDEPLOYMENT”!
U.S. OUT OF IRAQ AND AFGHANISTAN NOW!
U.S. HANDS OFF THE WORLD!
Another major cause for war in the Middle East is U.S. military support to the racist regime in Israel. Obama promises to continue this practice. At AIPAC Obama promised:
“Defense cooperation between the United States and Israel is a model of success, and must be deepened. As president, I will implement a Memorandum of Understanding that provides $30 billion in assistance to Israel over the next decade — investments to Israel's security that will not be tied to any other nation. First, we must approve the foreign aid request for 2009. Going forward, we can enhance our cooperation on missile defense. We should export military equipment to our ally Israel under the same guidelines as NATO.”
This despite Israel’s recent war of aggression against Lebanon, a war that, if it were not for the heroic resistance of Hezbollah fighters, would have ended in another Israeli occupation like Israel’s brutal occupation of Lebanon that took place in the 1980’s. That occupation included crimes against humanity committed by Israeli and allied Christian Phalangists when they massacred thousands of Palestinians in cold-blood at the Sabra and Chatila refugee camps.
In addition, Obama’s speech made no reference to the suffering faced by the Palestinian people as a result of the creation and continuation of the Jewish state. Israel is a state that created a homeland for one people, through force and violence, by denying the homeland of Palestine’s original inhabitants. Also missing from Obama’s speech was the brutal blockade currently being carried out against Palestinians in Gaza. Obama expressed zero sympathy for the Palestinians and other Arabs, only promises to supply Israel with the weapons to kill more Arabs.
Massive U.S. military aid helps keep the repressive governments of Israel, Egypt, and Saudi Arabia in power. Instead of promising more U.S. military aid, that aid should be cut off to better allow the people of the Middle East to decide their own future.
NO TO OBAMA’S PROMISE OF BILLIONS TO ISRAEL!
Another indicator of where Obama stands on imperialist war is how he sees the past wars of the United States. Of H. W. Bush and his war on Iraq Obama recently stated, "I have enormous sympathy for the foreign policy of George H. W. Bush. I don't have a lot of complaints about their handling of Desert Storm." (Barack Obama, from David Brooks article, "Obama Admires Bush, NY Times, May 16, 2008)
Leading up to that war, Kuwait was slant drilling into Iraqi Ramaila oil fields. Iraq saw this as theft. In addition, the Kuwaiti monarchy went against OPEC quotas and increased oil production by 40%, bringing down the price of oil on the world market, something Saddam Hussein called economic warfare.
Before Iraq invaded Kuwait, Saddam Hussein was, at that time an ally of the United States in the wars against Iran and the Kurds. He had received massive U.S. military backing in those wars. When he assembled troops on the Kuwaiti border, US ambassador April Glaspie met with Saddam Hussein and told him, "We have no opinion on the Arab-Arab conflicts, like your border disagreement with Kuwait."
Saddam Hussein saw this as a green light from his powerful U.S. ally to invade Kuwait. Soon after, he did.
But Saddam Hussein was set up by the United States because the U.S. wanted a war. The reason for this was to prop up the profits of the military industrial complex. The Soviet Union had just fallen, and the military industries needed an excuse to keep spending billions of dollars of our tax dollars on the military.
Saddam Hussein was the perfect boogie-man to meet their needs. The U.S. corporate media pointed out that he had murdered tens of thousands of Kurds, never mentioning why they were silent when the operations were taking place with weapons supplied by the United States.
The U.S. corporate media also claimed that premature babies in Kuwait had been taken out of incubators and left to die so that the incubators could be shipped back to Baghdad. The whole story was a complete fabrication, and the corporate media even admitted it after the war, but the lie served its purpose in swaying many people who otherwise questioned going to war for the repressive Kuwaiti monarchy.
In addition, President H.W. Bush claimed as reason for war, "Within three days, 120,000 Iraqi troops with 850 tanks had poured into Kuwait and moved south to threaten Saudi Arabia. It was then that I decided to act to check that aggression." This was based on supposed Pentagon satellite photos. Yet, from commercial satellite photos acquired by the St. Petersburg Times, this was proven to be a lie, the desert Bush senior and the Pentagon referred to was nothing but empty desert.
While playing up false stories of baby killers and the new Hitler that was going to march across the Middle East, the U.S. corporate media ignored Kuwait’s theft of Iraqi oil as well the historic claim of Iraq to Kuwait, with Kuwait being a construct of British imperialism to divide the territory and limit Iraqi access to the sea.
In addition, the U.S. corporate media completely ignored the repressive nature of the Kuwaiti monarchy that U.S. troops were sent to fight and die for. The vast majority of those living in Kuwait were denied the right to vote and other more basic rights. This included women and people labeled foreigners, many of whom had been in Kuwait for generations. Some who had ancestors in Kuwait prior to 1920 were even denied Kuwaiti citizenship. Palestinian workers built modern Kuwait, but they were kept in second class status. This situation was so bad that many Palestinians aided the Iraqi troops and saw them as a liberation army. After the U.S. re-installed the monarchy, most Kuwaiti Palestinians were driven out of Kuwait.
For women in Kuwait the Iraqi invasion also brought hope. Unlike all of the US supported governments and forces in the Arab World, Iraqi women have many rights found nowhere else in the Arab World except in the Asian republics of the former Soviet Union. Under Saddam Hussein, over 50% of Iraqi doctors were women. Iraqi women were allowed to walk unescorted in the streets. They were allowed to drive. Iraqi women could even freely criticize men. In addition, Iraqi women had the right to work and control their own funds. This was in stark contrast to the treatment of women under the repressive monarchy of Kuwait where women had / have no rights what-so-ever.
In carrying out the war to defend the Kuwaiti monarchy the U.S. used depleted uranium (DU) weapons that have contaminated Iraqi water, soil, and food with radiation. This radiation has caused large numbers of birth defects and other diseases for the Iraqi people. In addition, U.S. soldiers were not given protection and, as a result, became ill in massive numbers with the symptoms of radiation poisoning. Like Agent Orange poisoning in Vietnam, the military brass pretended they had no clue to the cause of this illness that became dubbed “Persian Gulf War Syndrome”. Yet this was later exposed as a lie when reports were made public warning the military brass of the health risks of DU weapons before the war.
Government demographer Beth Osborn Duponte lost her job when she estimated the civilian loss of life in Iraq to be around 83,000, 13,000 directly from U.S. bombing and another 70,000 civilians dead as a result of U.S. targeting of civilian necessities such as water treatment facilities, medical facilities and supplies, and the electric power grid.
In addition, Duponte estimated deaths of Iraqi troops to be around 40,000. Many of the Iraqi troops killed were buried alive. In defense of U.S. actions Col. Lon Maggart said, "People somehow have the notion that burying guys alive is nastier than blowing them up with hand grenades or sticking them in gut with bayonets, well it's not."
So Obama has no problems with Bush targeting civilians, irradiating U.S. troops and the Iraqi people, burying people alive, and re-installing a repressive monarchy in Kuwait. In addition, Obama wants to escalate the war in Afghanistan, send troops into Pakistan, is already threatening Iran with war, will never fully pull out of Iraq and only promises to pull out most troops in two years after an extended gradual re-deployment of troops to other wars, will continue to use murderous Blackwater mercenaries in Iraq, and promises billions in military aid to Israel. Enough said.
Obama will be nominated the presidential candidate of the Democrat Party on August 24-28 at the Democrat Party National Convention (DNC). In opposition to the DNC convention, protests are being organized, with organizers stating:
"On August 24-28, the ruling elite and their defenders will converge in Denver Colorado, in an attempt to recuperate the gains of global social movements and produce another myth of progress. Lip service to global warming, the economic crisis and the war will endow them with the magic to spread amnesia across the hearts and minds of North America... Outside those doors, however, so many will exclaim, smash and sing a harmonious ‘no.’...”
In addition, there will be protests at the equally pro-war Republican National convention being held September 1-4 in Minneapolis, Minnesota.
Although virtually ignored by the corporate press, there are other presidential candidates who are running in opposition to the Democrats and Republicans who are for immediate withdrawal from Iraq and Afghanistan. These include Cynthia McKinney running on the Green Party ticket, Brian Moore of the Socialist Party, and Gloria La Riva on the Party for Socialism and Liberation ticket, and Róger Calero on the Socialist Workers Party ticket. Corporate controlled elections and media assure that these authentic anti-war candidates will not get elected, but these candidacies do help expose people to positions of politicians not controlled by corporate interests and the pro-war Democrat Party machine. In addition, through some of these campaigns, more people become exposed to socialist ideas and the ideas of class struggle methods to bring about change.
A vote for Obama or McCain is a vote for war! So that's what, in active terms, you're really voting for when you vote Democrat or Republican. Those of us voting for third parties, or refusing to vote, will not change the country directly through the elections either, but at least we won’t be dumb enough to vote for own oppressors and exploiters that are waging imperialist war. Instead, we will have the sense to be working for something different.
And those of us in unions should be angry that our hard earned union dues are being squandered on the Democrat Party when that money should instead be put into stronger strike funds to strengthen our ability to fights for better contracts, for socialized medicine, and for bigger strikes against the wars.
Build the Anti-War Movement! For More Strikes for Immediate Withdrawal Like the May 1st ILWU Anti-War Strike That Shut Down 29 Ports! Support Soldiers Refusing to Fight Including the 10,000 U.S. Soldiers Who Have Gone AWOL! Build the Socialist Anti-Imperialist Movement! U.S. Hands off Iran! U.S. Out of Iraq and Afghanistan Now!
This is an article of Liberation News, subscribe free:
lists.riseup.net/www/info/...ation_news
Join the Cool Earth Party
tribes.tribe.net/coolearth
posted by:
|
Unsubscribed |
Advertisement
Advertisement
-
Re: Obama Lays Out Plans for Continued War
Mon, July 14, 2008 - 8:41 PMagain, mr argue, as much as i can agree with much of what you have to say,
what do you propose we do? put mccain in office?
I'd prefer ralph nader or dennis kucinich...but i also live in reality, not fantasy.
These polarizations of yours are sort of senseless. Sometimes they are even a bit nutty. But not today.
Today you are taking a principled and correct stance and telling everybody the truth they don't want to hear.
The other problem is that you are painting yourself and all of us into an untenable corner.
Again, who should we have as pres?
You keep arguing against obama. And you even argue against the best solution that previously was on the table. Kucinich. Why? Because he didn't take the right stand on mumia.
Your bar, my friend, is so high that nobody would ever be able to hop over it, dare i say, not even you.
We live in reality. And in reality, human beings are imperfect, they are flawed, and the good always comes with the bad.
Where do you live? -
-
Unsu...
Re: Obama Lays Out Plans for Continued War
Mon, July 14, 2008 - 9:58 PMThere were a number of reasons I didn't support Kucinich, his support for the racist frame-up of Mumia was only one. I opposed Kucinich's vote for war with Afghanistan. I explained that Kucinich would never reform the corporate controlled Democrat Party, nor would he ever break from the Democrats, but that Kucinich's role was to try to draw the left back into the pro-war anti-worker Democrat Party. In addition, on principle, I never support any candidates of the Democrat or Republican Parties.
As for who I want for president, I answered this in the article:
So Obama has no problems with Bush targeting civilians, irradiating U.S. troops and the Iraqi people, burying people alive, and re-installing a repressive monarchy in Kuwait. In addition, Obama wants to escalate the war in Afghanistan, send troops into Pakistan, is already threatening Iran with war, will never fully pull out of Iraq and only promises to pull out most troops in two years after an extended gradual re-deployment of troops to other wars, will continue to use murderous Blackwater mercenaries in Iraq, and promises billions in military aid to Israel. Enough said.
...
Although virtually ignored by the corporate press, there are other presidential candidates who are running in opposition to the Democrats and Republicans who are for immediate withdrawal from Iraq and Afghanistan. These include Cynthia McKinney running on the Green Party ticket, Brian Moore of the Socialist Party, Gloria La Riva on the Party for Socialism and Liberation ticket, and Róger Calero on the Socialist Workers Party ticket. Corporate controlled elections and media assure that these authentic anti-war candidates will not get elected, but these candidacies do help expose people to positions of politicians not controlled by corporate interests and the pro-war Democrat Party machine. In addition, through some of these campaigns, more people become exposed to socialist ideas and the ideas of class struggle methods to bring about change.
A vote for Obama or McCain is a vote for war! So that's what, in active terms, you're really voting for when you vote Democrat or Republican. Those of us voting for third parties, or refusing to vote, will not change the country directly through the elections either, but at least we won’t be dumb enough to vote for own oppressors and exploiters that are waging imperialist war. Instead, we will have the sense to be working for something different.
And those of us in unions should be angry that our hard earned union dues are being squandered on the Democrat Party when that money should instead be put into stronger strike funds to strengthen our ability to fight for better contracts, for socialized medicine, and for bigger strikes against the wars.
Build the Anti-War Movement! For More Strikes for Immediate Withdrawal Like the May 1st ILWU Anti-War Strike That Shut Down 29 Ports! Support Soldiers Refusing to Fight Including the 10,000 U.S. Soldiers Who Have Gone AWOL! Build the Socialist Anti-Imperialist Movement! U.S. Hands off Iran! U.S. Out of Iraq and Afghanistan Now! -
-
Re: Obama Lays Out Plans for Continued War
Mon, July 14, 2008 - 11:48 PMThere were a number of reasons I didn't support Kucinich, his support for the racist frame-up of Mumia was only one. I opposed Kucinich's vote for war with Afghanistan.
--------
me 2.
--------
I explained that Kucinich would never reform the corporate controlled Democrat Party,
---------
on what grounds do you base this assertion? Its clear that you have no understanding of cause and effect and
that you have a chronic habit of blowing things out of proportion.
--------
nor would he ever break from the Democrats, but that Kucinich's role was to try to draw the left back into the pro-war anti-worker Democrat Party.
----------
I agree he was and is used by them to do that. But that doesn't mean that he intends it to be like that.
---------
In addition, on principle, I never support any candidates of the Democrat or Republican Parties.
---------
And as a result, the republicans keep winning because their mass of evil and stupid votebloc overpowers such reasoned philosophers
such as yourself.
---------
As for who I want for president, I answered this in the article:
So Obama has no problems with Bush targeting civilians,
----------
Again, your lying and exagerating. Obama has problems with that. Pay closer attention.
Quit polarizing and then using that polarization as a reality filter.
-------
irradiating U.S. troops and the Iraqi people, burying people alive, and re-installing a repressive monarchy in Kuwait.
-----------
Your list goes on an on. But none of its true.
----------
In addition, Obama wants to escalate the war in Afghanistan, send troops into Pakistan, is already threatening Iran with war,
----------
Yeah, i hate that 2. Again, take the good with the bad. obama is a whole person. So is Kucinich. As a whole, hes more good than bad.
The best way to deal with the difference is to try to form a real social movement with answers and then educate the system. Not diabolize him because hes imperfect, and because hes had his head filled with evil washington BS.
-----------
will never fully pull out of Iraq
----------
i don't like his position about this any more than you do, but i'm able to understand the difference between his position and your
hyperbole. For such a smart guy, its a terrible pity. I argue with the trolls around here because they are evil and wrong. I argue with you
cuz if you just got your head out of propaganda warrior ville, you'd be a great asset to society.
---------
and only promises to pull out most troops in two years after an extended gradual re-deployment of troops to other wars, will continue to use murderous Blackwater mercenaries in Iraq, and promises billions in military aid to Israel. Enough said.
---------
I don't like blackwater either. And i don't like military aid to israel. but again, theres a difference between disagreeing with our best option,
and diabolizing him and polarizing against him because he doesn't hop over our bar. Do something constructive with your mental energy.
Sheesh.
----------
Although virtually ignored by the corporate press, there are other presidential candidates who are running in opposition to the Democrats and Republicans who are for immediate withdrawal from Iraq and Afghanistan. These include Cynthia McKinney running on the Green Party ticket, Brian Moore of the Socialist Party, Gloria La Riva on the Party for Socialism and Liberation ticket, and Róger Calero on the Socialist Workers Party ticket.
---------
Yeah, and even a socialist prez would be better than obama. BUT we don't live in cartoonland. We live in the USA in 2008. So we have
a false dillemma choice between Dr. Stupid and Evil, And Dr Good but uneducated. Two puppets for corporate America; except that one of them isn't stupid and evil, one of them actually has a lot of good reasons to seek some kind of real social economic justice, and one of them has identified corporate power as one part of the problem. So you can throw your vote at the impossible, or you can throw your vote
at somebody whos just not as great as you might like. The difference is, Obama has a chance of winning. And none of those people has a snowballs chance in hell of getting anything more than a very tiny fraction of the vote.
------------
Corporate controlled elections and media assure that these authentic anti-war candidates will not get elected, but these candidacies do help expose people to positions of politicians not controlled by corporate interests and the pro-war Democrat Party machine. In addition, through some of these campaigns, more people become exposed to socialist ideas and the ideas of class struggle methods to bring about change.
-----------
Again, very principled of you. So just say no to obama, get mccain in, and punish the world and bring about armageddon, all so that you can feel warm and fuzzy with your self righteousness. Hello?
---------
A vote for Obama or McCain is a vote for war!
---------
No, a vote for mccain is a vote for war. A vote for obama is a vote for a reasonable politician we can actually have some chance of talking some sense into.
Reality is not so super simplified.
----------
So that's what, in active terms, you're really voting for when you vote Democrat or Republican.
---------
You think i don't know? You think i am not out there off election season trying to wake people up to the fact that both the dems and the republicans are just two heads on one hydra? WTF? Do you read what i write, or do you truly see EVERYTHING only through the lens
of your polarizations?
-----------
Those of us voting for third parties, or refusing to vote, will not change the country directly through the elections either, but at least we won’t be dumb enough to vote for own oppressors and exploiters that are waging imperialist war. Instead, we will have the sense to be working for something different.
--------
You can work for something different AND choose the lesser of two evils. By the way, 500 percent evil versus 5 percent evil is a no brainer.
----------
And those of us in unions should be angry that our hard earned union dues are being squandered on the Democrat Party when that money should instead be put into stronger strike funds to strengthen our ability to fight for better contracts, for socialized medicine, and for bigger strikes against the wars.
---------
I agree completely.
But i have an adult perspective, not a two dimensional propaganda whore polarized viewpoint, sold to me by socialist propaganda media. -
-
Unsu...
Re: Obama Lays Out Plans for Continued War
Mon, July 14, 2008 - 11:55 PMMe: "So Obama has no problems with Bush targeting civilians,"
----------
Prometheus, "Again, your lying and exagerating. Obama has problems with that. Pay closer attention.
Quit polarizing and then using that polarization as a reality filter."
I don't lie and I don't exagerate.
Of H. W. Bush and his war on Iraq Obama recently stated, "I have enormous sympathy for the foreign policy of George H. W. Bush. I don't have a lot of complaints about their handling of Desert Storm." (Barack Obama, from David Brooks article, "Obama Admires Bush, NY Times, May 16, 2008)
Government demographer Beth Osborn Duponte lost her job when she estimated the civilian loss of life in Iraq to be around 83,000, 13,000 directly from U.S. bombing and another 70,000 civilians dead as a result of U.S. targeting of civilian necessities such as water treatment facilities, medical facilities and supplies, and the electric power grid.
As I said, "So Obama has no problems with Bush targeting civilians,"
Prometheus, after you falsely called me a liar, I don't think I'll bother reading your attack on me, and reality, further. -
-
Re: Obama Lays Out Plans for Continued War
Tue, July 15, 2008 - 12:15 AMI don't lie and I don't exagerate.
---------
Being ignorant and telling something you think is truth doesn't change the fact that its a lie if it is. Being prone to outlandish hyperbole
and delusional polarizations again, does not excuse you from responsibility to the truth.
Calling obama pro war is hyperbole. do i need to post his platform planks for you?
You don't think you are lying or exagerating. The tragic thing is, anybody but you can see that you do both, chronically and habitually.
I'm VERY sympathetic to your over all position. Imagine how it all looks to an obama supporter, or a republican? In fact, all you do for the left is exactly the same thing that athiests do for christianity. You provide the proof that there is a batch of wingnutty propaganda BS artists out there, and you fire them up to go fight against you. You argue; and your polarization draws to you the fulfillment of itself. Your living in a delusional world created by the lens of your polarizations. You think its all fine and dandy, and you even think you are fighting the good fight.
And the real comedy is, you are fighting the good fight. But those clown shoes yo uare wearing are tripping up everybody else
on your own side. Your running with that ball in the wrong direction. You are so flagrantly exagerating and distorting the truth that you make a mirror to all of the repugnicons, flagrantly lying and exagerating and distorting the truth. With you yelling and them yelling, sense, in its reasoned and much quieter voice, doesn't stand a chance. Everything you think you are a servant of, and all of the high ideals you have are
being shot in the foot by you, because your need to make a point stick is greater than your need to be fair and balanced.
---------------
Prometheus, after you falsely called me a liar,
----------
The only way to fix it is to stop doing it. I'm not falsely calling you a liar. Any neutral person can tell yo uare exagerating and using
hyperbole. Its as plain as day. You don't want to see it, but you will never convince anybody you are right or that you have a sane mind
other than the people who are already as polarized as you are.
I can carry on sane and civil conversations with republicans, democrats, socialists, capitalists, and i can still hold to the truth. I can be fair to all sides and all points of view. And in the long run, the more that i do that, the more people i win over to my side.
As long as you stay polarized, the jokes on you, because you are your own best argument against yourself, and all anybody does is yawn,
and think of what a fool you are making of yourself. nobodies convinced by you, because its apparent that you are being propgandistic,
absolutist, using black and white thinking, and in every other way, duplicating the same kinds of junk mental processes that caused the
problem in the first place.
------------
I don't think I'll bother reading your attack on me,
------------
Run away. Or face reality.
but i'm not stopping, just cuz you want to bury your head in the sand.
--------
and reality, further.
-------
You are the one thats insulting reality.
I'm the one whos trying to wake you up to it.
I like you. I think you are incredibly principled. I admire that.
So stop thinking like a republican, and start thinking like a problem solver.
Until you do that, all you are is a pawn in the propaganda war, and you are wasting yours and everybody elses time.
reply to this post -
-
Unsu...
Re: Obama Lays Out Plans for Continued War
Tue, July 15, 2008 - 12:34 AM"You don't think you are lying or exagerating. The tragic thing is, anybody but you can see that you do both, chronically and habitually."
No Prometheus, it's just that you are so enveloped in the propaganda and lies of this system, that you don't know the truth even when it bites you in the ass.
"reply to this post"
No thanks. -
-
Re: Obama Lays Out Plans for Continued War
Tue, July 15, 2008 - 12:37 AMdon't then.
but its already too late.
The cats out of the bag, and anybody who wants to knock you off your high horse need only look at this exchange. -
-
Unsu...
Re: Obama Lays Out Plans for Continued War
Tue, July 15, 2008 - 12:41 AMPrometheus claims, "I'm VERY sympathetic to your over all position."
No you're not, you're hostile, rude, and don't have a clue. You are opposed to what I say, even pissed off by it, that is why you bother attacking me.
Prometheus claims, "anybody who wants to knock you off your high horse need only look at this exchange."
As for this exchange, it's just fine, all of my statements are true, deliberate, and well thought out.
Prometheus claims, "In fact, all you do for the left is exactly the same thing that athiests do for christianity. You provide the proof that there is a batch of wingnutty propaganda BS artists out there, and you fire them up to go fight against you."
I am an atheist as well, and I don't feel I'm doing anything for Christianity. It is sad to see omeone who thinks that people should not be allowed their opnions and beliefs because, heaven forbid, it might upset someone with the opposite opinions. -
-
This is the maximum depth. Additional responses will not be threaded.
Re: Obama Lays Out Plans for Continued War
Tue, July 15, 2008 - 12:49 AM"I'm VERY sympathetic to your over all position."
No you're not, you're hostile, rude, and don't have a clue.
-------------
I'm truthful, dealing as best i can with a problem, and solving it.
You made yourself the problem. Now yer getting solved.
You have lots of clues. Try adding them together with something other than
assorted assumptions, and leaps to false conclusions, and black and white thinking.
---------
"reply to this post"
No thanks. Well I guess I already have. Oh well.
-----------
lol.
----------
As for this exchange, it's just fine, all of my statements are true, deliberate, and well thought out.
----------
Most of your statements are true. Other than the ones that or hyperbole.
I am sure they are deliberate, i don't think that was ever in question.
Well thought out does not mean the same thing as cogent. Lots of deliberative thinking can still be bad thinking.
when a person is using a polarized lens and sorting colored blocks, the simple fact that they are doing it wrong doesn't mean that they
aren't engaged in real process, its just means that until they take the colored lenses off, their senses are impairing their judgment.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pola...olitics%29
Polarization (politics)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
In politics, polarization is the process by which the public opinion divides and goes to the extremes. It can also refer to when the extreme factions of a political party gain dominance in a party. In either case moderate voices often find that they have lost power.
Contents
[hide]
* 1 Definitions of polarization
* 2 Polarization in United States politics
* 3 Polarization in other national politics
* 4 References
[edit] Definitions of polarization
The term "polarization" comes from political science. There, it is a measure of the electorate's response to a political figure or position;[1] it is not an assessment of, or a value judgment upon, a political figure. It does not mean that a political figure is necessarily unelectable.[2] Political figures can receive a polarized response from the public through actions of their own,[3] through historical trends or accidents,[3] or due to external forces such as media bias.[4]
Political scientists principally measure polarization in two ways.[5] One is "plain" or generic polarization, often referred to as popular polarization,[1] which happens when opinions diverge towards poles of distribution or intensity.[1] Political scientists several kinds of metrics to measure popular polarization, such as the American National Election Studies' "feeling thermometer" polls, which measure the degree of opinion about a political figure.[6][7]
The other form that political scientists examine is partisan polarization, which happens when support for a political figure or position differentiates itself along political party lines.[3]
Popular media definitions and uses of "polarization" tend to be looser.
[edit] Polarization in United States politics
In recent times, some Americans, such as American Demographics magazine editor John McManus, have seen increasing polarization in the U.S. political system. Some point to Jim Jeffords' resignation from the Republican Party in 2001 because of his feelings that the party was becoming increasingly polarized and that moderate voices were getting shut out. Former President Bill Clinton said on the 9/18/06 Daily Show that he thinks the Republican Party believes in polarization.
Others, such as Constitution Party analyst Michael Peroutka, take the view that the U.S. political parties themselves are actually quite close in terms of actual policy and party leadership. They say that political rhetoric is polarized in order to create some illusion of policy difference; however, in practice and action, both parties take a similar approach to government. Examples include vast bipartisan and popular support for one side of various supposedly controversial issues; a majority of both major parties in Congress voted to cut taxes in 2001, to authorize use of force in Iraq in 2002, and to ban partial-birth abortion in 2003. Additionally, since 1948, the Congress and the President--whether Democratic or Republican--have shown the same willingness to grow the size of the Federal Government. Supporters of this theory also say that public opinion has not gone to the extreme; rather, both parties have come closer to the center. Thus, for the average "centrist" voter, it is easier to decide which party/candidate is closest to them. This can be demonstrated in both the 2000 and 2004 Presidential elections, when the vote was virtually half and half between the two sides. Essentially, both parties are equally desirable to average Americans.
[edit] Polarization in other national politics
An example of polarization was in Germany in the early years after the First World War, when there was support for political parties on the extreme left such as the Spartacists, and also the extreme right, such as the Nazi Party.
[edit] References
1. ^ a b c Hetherington, Marc J.; Bruce I. Oppenheimer (April 2007). "The Discounted Voter: Polarization at the Congressional District Level". University of Wisconsin Epstein Conference.
2. ^ Jacobson, A Divider, Not a Uniter, pp. 7, 9.
3. ^ a b c Jacobson, Gary C. (2008). A Divider, Not a Uniter: George W. Bush and the American People — The 2006 Election and Beyond. Pearson Longman. ISBN 978-0-205-52974-2. pp. 14–15.
4. ^ Bernhardt, Dan; Stefan Krasa, Mattias Polborn (January 2008). "Political Polarization and the Electoral Effects of Media Bias". Ludwig Maximilian University of Munich/Ifo Institut für Wirtschaftsforschung.
5. ^ Jacobson, A Divider, Not a Uniter, pp. 35–36.
6. ^ Sulfaro, Valerie A. (September 2007). "Affective evaluations of first ladies: a comparison of Hillary Clinton and Laura Bush" (Fee or registration required). Presidential Studies Quarterly 37 (3): 486–514. doi:10.1111/j.1741-5705.2007.02608.x.
7. ^ Burrell, Barbara (October 2000). "Hillary Rodham Clinton as first lady: the people’s perspective". The Social Science Journal 37 (4): 529–546. doi:10.1016/S0362-3319(00)00094-X.
This article about politics is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it. -
-
Unsu...
Re: Obama Lays Out Plans for Continued War
Tue, July 15, 2008 - 12:52 AMPrometheus claims, "You made yourself the problem. Now yer getting solved."
No, pro-war Obama is the problem. I'm part of the solution.
Unlike Obama and the Democrat Party, I'm opposed to these wars and occupations. -
-
Re: Obama Lays Out Plans for Continued War
Tue, July 15, 2008 - 12:55 AMNo, pro-war Obama is the problem. I'm part of the solution.
-------
No, you want to be part of the solution, but until you grow a conscience, you are every bit as wrong, and every bit as much a part of the problem
as any other propagandist.
-
-
Unsu...
Re: Obama Lays Out Plans for Continued War
Tue, July 15, 2008 - 12:59 AM
What evidence do you have that I have no conscience?
Is this going to be another one of your attacks on athiests?
Unlike Obama, I'm against murdering large numbers of people for the interests of U.S. imperialism. It would seem it is I who has the conscience. -
-
Re: Obama Lays Out Plans for Continued War
Tue, July 15, 2008 - 1:02 AMWhat evidence do you have that I have no conscience?
---------
Your polarizations. Your black and white thinking. Your diabolizations of well intentioned (and yes, imperfect, flawed, and mistake making)
people.
--------------
Is this going to be another one of your attacks on athiests?
--------
No, its going to be a hammer pounding the nail into the coffin of the proof of your cognitive dissonance.
-
-
Re: Obama Lays Out Plans for Continued War
Tue, July 15, 2008 - 1:03 AMPromethus says, "I make a point of being on the e-mail lists for both the McCain and Obama campaigns."
So? Both are pro-war, pro-Patriot Act, pro-FISA, etc. etc. etc.
That's like saying, we listen to both kinds of music here, country and western.
-----------
I agree. You are so intent on arguing that all you can do is find creative ways to miss the main point.
that, and you can't seem to manage to notice that i'm bringing in outside info. You see, this is such old turf to cover that its senseless for me to reinvent the wheel just so we can roll you off your stump.
pay attention. Thats not me, its the ARTICLE.
-
-
-
Re: Obama Lays Out Plans for Continued War
Tue, July 15, 2008 - 1:00 AMen.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pola...sychology)
Polarization (psychology)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
All or part of this article may be confusing or unclear.
Please help clarify the article. Suggestions may be on the talk page. (February 2008)
For other uses, see Polarization (disambiguation).
In communications and psychology, polarization is the process whereby a social or political group is divided into two opposing sub-groups with fewer and fewer members of the group remaining neutral or holding an intermediate position.
When polarization occurs, there is a tendency for the opposing sides of an argument to make increasingly disagreeable statements, via the "pendulum effect". Thus, it is commonly observed in polarized groups, that judgments made after group discussion will be more extreme on a given subject than the average of individual judgments made prior to discussion.
Also called 'group polarization'; used to be called the 'risky shift phenomenon', with particular reference to jury decision-making.
See also: Paul Watzlawick and Richard Schwartz
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Group_polarization
Group polarization
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
This article needs additional citations for verification.
Please help improve this article by adding reliable references. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (November 2007)
Group polarization is the tendency of people to make decisions that are more extreme when they are in a group as opposed to a decision alone or independently.
Contents
[hide]
* 1 Overview
* 2 Developments in the study of group polarization
* 3 Mechanisms of polarization
* 4 Group polarization in online discussions
* 5 Incestuous amplification in the military
* 6 Risky shift
* 7 See also
* 8 References
[edit] Overview
Study of this effect has shown that after participating in a discussion group, members tend to advocate more extreme positions and call for riskier courses of action than individuals who did not participate in any such discussion. This phenomenon was originally coined risky shift but was found to apply to more than risk, so the replacement term choice shift has been suggested.[citation needed]
In addition, attitudes such as racial and sexual prejudice tend to be reduced (for already low-prejudice individuals) and inflated (for already high-prejudice individuals) after group discussion.
Group polarization has been used to explain the decision-making of a jury, particularly when considering punitive damages in a civil trial. Studies have shown that after deliberating together, mock jury members often decided on punitive damage awards that were larger or smaller than the amount any individual juror had favoured prior to deliberation. The studies indicated that when the jurors favoured a relatively low award, discussion would lead to an even more lenient result, while if the jury was inclined to impose a stiff penalty, discussion would make it even harsher.
[edit] Developments in the study of group polarization
The study of group polarization began with an unpublished 1961 Master’s thesis by MIT student James Stoner, who observed the so-called "risky shift", meaning that a group’s decisions are riskier than the average of the individual decisions of members before the group met. The discovery of the risky shift was considered surprising and counter-intuitive, especially since earlier work in the 1920s and 1930s by Allport and other researchers suggested that individuals made more extreme decisions than did groups, leading to the expectation that groups would make decisions that would conform to the average risk level of its members. The seemingly counter-intuitive findings of Stoner led to a flurry of research around the risky shift, which was originally thought to be a special case exception to the standard decision-making practice. By the late 1960s, however, it had become clear that the risky shift was just one type of many attitudes that became more extreme in groups, leading Moscovici and Zavalloni to term the overall phenomenon "group polarization".
Thus began a decade-long period of examination of the applicability of group polarization to a number of fields, ranging from political attitudes to religion, in both lab and field settings. Basic studies of group polarization tapered off, but research on the topic continued. Group polarization was well-established, but remained non-obvious and puzzling because its mechanisms were not understood.
[edit] Mechanisms of polarization
Almost as soon as the phenomenon of group polarization was discovered, a variety of hypotheses was suggested for the mechanisms for its action. These explanations were gradually winnowed down and grouped together until two primary mechanisms remained, social comparison and influence. Social comparison approaches, sometimes called interpersonal comparison, were based on social psychological views of self-perception and the drive of individuals to appear socially desirable . The second major mechanism is informational influence, which is also sometimes referred to as persuasive argument theory, or PAT. PAT holds that individual choices are determined by individuals weighing remembered pro and con arguments. These arguments are then applied to possible choices, and the most positive is selected. As a mechanism for polarization, group discussion shifts the weight of evidence as each individual exposes their pro and con arguments, giving each other new arguments and increasing the stock of pro arguments in favor of the group tendency, and con arguments against the group tendency. The persuasiveness of an argument depends on two factors – originality and its validity. According to PAT, a valid argument would hold more persuasive weight than a non-valid one. Originality has come to be understood in terms of the novelty of an argument. A more novel argument would increase the likelihood that it is an addition to the other group members’ pool of pro and con arguments, rather than a simple repetition.
In the 1970s, significant arguments occurred over whether persuasive argumentation alone accounted for group polarization. Daniel Isenberg’s 1986 meta-analysis of the data gathered by both the persuasive argument and social comparison camps succeeded, in large part, in answering the questions about predominant mechanisms. Isenberg concluded that there was substantial evidence that both effects were operating simultaneously, and that PAT operated when social comparison did not, and vice-versa. Isenberg did discover that PAT did seem to have a significantly stronger effect, however.
See also: Groupthink, group-serving bias, and list of cognitive biases
[edit] Group polarization in online discussions
Group polarization has also been found to occur with online (computer-mediated) discussions e.g. (Sia et al., 2002). In particular, research has found that group discussions conducted when discussants are in a distributed (cannot see one another) or anonymous (cannot identify one another) environment, can lead to even higher levels of group polarization compared to traditional meetings. This is attributed to the greater numbers of novel arguments generated (due to PAT) and higher incidence of one-upmanship behaviours (due to social comparison).
[edit] Incestuous amplification in the military
Within Pentagon circles "incestuous amplification" refers to positive reinforcement of one's own OODA loop that may contribute to group polarization. It was used to describe how officers and men in the army can form very different analysis of the same situation because officers and men have different perspectives of the same problem, and how a prevailing view can become established wisdom by mere repetition. [1]
"Incestuous amplification" is also the term used by writer John Stauber who with Sheldon Rampton has written the book The Best War Ever to describe the justification and conduct of the Iraq War immediately before and since 2003.
[edit] Risky shift
The risky shift is the tendency for decisions taken by a group after discussion to display more experimentation, be less conservative and be more risky than those made by individuals acting alone prior to any discussion. In group conditions, people with relatively moderate viewpoints tend to assume that their groupmates hold more extreme views, and to alter their own views in compensation--a phenomenon known as groupthink. This can occur simultaneously and in isolation: all group members might adjust their views to a more conservative or liberal position, thus leading to a "consensus" that is totally false. The risky shift occurs when the group collectively agrees on a course of action that is likewise more extreme than they would have made if asked individually.
In 1970, Myers and Bishop demonstrated this effect[2] by arranging students into groups to discuss issues of race. Groups of prejudiced students were found to be become even more prejudiced, while unprejudiced students became even more unprejudiced.
Today, the phenomenon is typically known by the more general name "Group polarization." The earliest experiments predominantly selected topics for which participants turned out to move towards riskier decisions, so the name "risky shift" was accurate. However, depending on the initial tendencies of group members, "cautious shift" outcomes are also possible. It is more accurate to say that following discussion, a group's actions will be a more extreme version of each individual's preferred action.
Risky shift or the more generalized tendency for groups to adjust their views in light of social context has profound impact on juries, who often decide the severity of punishment in light of the strength of the evidence they are presented.
[edit] See also
* Attitude polarization
* Polarization (psychology)
* Confirmation bias
-
-
Unsu...
Re: Obama Lays Out Plans for Continued War
Tue, July 15, 2008 - 1:03 AMOh, now your just spamming us with cuts and pastes Prometheus.
Calm down.
Take a deep breath.
I'm not Satin.
Just someone with opinions you disagree with.
You need to learn that the fact that you disagree with me doesn't automatically mean you're right and doesn't mean I'm lying. -
-
Re: Obama Lays Out Plans for Continued War
Tue, July 15, 2008 - 1:07 AMI'm not Satin.
---------
no, your definitely more like suade. or Denim.
---------
Just someone with opinions you disagree with.
----------
No, your somebody whom i agree with. -
-
Unsu...
Re: Obama Lays Out Plans for Continued War
Tue, July 15, 2008 - 1:09 AM
Prometheus says, "No, your somebody whom i agree with."
That was sudden. Fine, now we agree.
-
Re: Obama Lays Out Plans for Continued War
Tue, July 15, 2008 - 1:13 AMYou need to learn that the fact that you disagree with me doesn't automatically mean you're right and doesn't mean I'm lying.
--------
You musta added that with the back button.
I'm calm. I'm cool. I'm just playing chess. Got "Chess; Titans"? Great graphics, lots of good options.
I don't disagree with your content. I disagree with your spin. It IS lying when its not the truth. Obama is not pro war, hes against war
and maybe not as lucid about how to go about PEACE as you and me.
for instance.
Hes a flawed, imperfect, human being. A lawyer. Not a social Scientist, not a systems theorist, not even a political scientist.
In other words, hes a good person, but compared to the two of us, hes ignorant.
Now you want to toss him in the meat grinder to punish him (and society as a whole) for not jumping through your hoops or meeting
your expectations. Whereas I share all of your disagreements with him, but still have the sanity to recognize that over all, hes a decent person, and more importantly, hes thousands of times a better choice for this country than John Mccain, or, John Mccain by default ie
third party hopeless and impossible options that just help get in John mccain. -
-
Re: Obama Lays Out Plans for Continued War
Tue, July 15, 2008 - 1:24 AMwww.ontheissues.org/2008/Bar...Peace.htm
Barack Obama on War & Peace
Democratic Jr Senator (IL)
* Sub-sections under War & Peace: Iraq War
* Trouble Spots
* Voting Record
* Other issues under War & Peace
President sets Iraq mission; Generals then implement tactics
Q: Will you vote to confirm Gen. David Petraeus in his nomination to be the head of Central Command?
A: Yes. I think Petraeus has done a good tactical job in Iraq.
Q: If Gen Patraeus says your plan to get out of Iraq is a mistake, will you replace him?
A: I will listen to General Petraeus given the experience that he has accumulated over the last several years. But it would be my job as commander in chief to set the mission, to make the strategic decisions in light of the problems that we're having in Afghanistan & Pakistan.
Q: So would you replace him or would you just say, "I'm the commander in chief, follow my order?"
A: What I will do is say, "We have a new mission. It is my strategic assessment that we have to provide a time table to the Iraqi government. I want you to tell me how best to execute this new assignment, and I am happy to listen to the tactical considerations and any ideas you have, but what I will not do is to continue to let the Iraqi government off the hook."
Source: Fox News Sunday: 2008 presidential race interview Apr 27, 2008
President sets Iraq mission; give generals a new mission
Q: You have said "we will be out of Iraq in 16 months at the most." No matter what the military commanders say?
A: The commander in chief sets the mission. That's not the role of the generals. The president's approach lately has been to say, well, I'm just taking cues from General Petraeus. Well, the president sets the mission. The general and our troops carry out that mission. And unfortunately we have had a bad mission. Once I've given them a new mission, that we are going to proceed deliberatel in an orderly fashion out of Iraq, if they come to me and want to adjust tactics, then I will certainly take their recommendations into consideration. And I have to look at not just the situation in Iraq, but the fact that we continue to see al Qaeda getting stronger in Afghanistan and in Pakistan, we continue to see anti-American sentiment fanned all cross the Middle East, and we are overstretched in a way that we do not have a strategic reserve at this point.
Source: 2008 Philadelphia primary debate, on eve of PA primary Apr 16, 2008
Take no options off the table if Iran attacks Israel
Q: Iran continues to pursue a nuclear option that poses a threat to Israel. Should it be US policy to treat an Iranian attack on Israel as if it were an attack on the US?
OBAMA: Our first step should be to keep nuclear weapons out of the hands of the Iranians. I will take no options off the table when it comes to preventing them from using nuclear weapons, &that would include any threats directed at Israel or any of our allies in the region.
Q: So you would extend our deterrent to Israel?
OBAMA: It is very important that Iran understands that an attack on Israel is an attack on our strongest ally in the region, one that we would consider unacceptable, and the US would take appropriate action.
Q: Sen. Clinton, would you?
CLINTON: We should be looking to create an umbrella of deterrence that goes much further than just Israel. I would make it clear to the Iranians that an attack on Israel would incur massive retaliation from the US, but I would do the same with other countries in the region.
Source: 2008 Philadelphia primary debate, on eve of PA primary Apr 16, 2008
FactCheck: Overstated displaced Iraqis; actually 4.2 million
Obama stretched the facts when he said there are "two-and-a-half million displaced people inside of Iraq and several million more outside of Iraq." The Red Cross put the figure of those displaced inside the country at 2.3 million as of Sept. 2007, and lowered its estimate to 2.2 million as the security situation improved and some people have returned home. As for displaced Iraqis outside the nation's borders, according to a recent report from the UN, that figure is around 2 million.
Source: FactCheck.org on 2008 Politico pre-Potomac Primary interview Feb 11, 2008
$2 trillion and the loss of life in Iraq are not sustainable
I want to be as careful getting out as we were careless getting in, but I want to make sure that we get all our combat troops out as quickly as we can safely. Now, the estimates are maybe that's two brigades per month. At that pace it would be some time in 2009 that we had our combat troops out, depending on whether Bush follows through on his commitment to draw down from the surge. We don't know that yet. We are spending $9 billion to $10 billion every month. That's money that could be going in South Carolina to lay broadband lines in rural communities, to put kids back to school. When McCain says we'll be there for 50 or 60 or 100 years, it is not just the loss of life, which is obviously the most tragic aspect of it, it's also the fact that financially it is unsustainable. We will have spent $2 trillion at least, it's estimated, by the time this whole thing is over. That's enough to have rebuilt every road, bridge, hospital, school in the US, and still have money left over.
Source: 2008 Congressional Black Caucus Democratic debate Jan 21, 2008
Iraq War has made US less safe from terrorism
KEYES: What probability was there that there was going to be a biological or nuclear attack against the US [from Iraq]? Bush acted to reduce that probability to zero.
OBAMA: There were no weapons of mass destruction. There was no connection between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda. This war has made us less safe because it betrayed a set of international rules that were in place to protect us, that could have helped us defeat terrorism. Mr. Keyes implied that by fighting this war in Iraq we have reduced the probability of a terrorist attack to zero. That cannot be the case when we have nuclear fuel lying around in the former Soviet Union. We still have ports that are insecure. We have nuclear and chemical plants that are still insecure. The notion that we have eliminated the terrorist threat while Osama bin Laden roams free in the hills of Afghanistan is simply not the case.
KEYES: We have reduced the probability of an attack from Saddam Hussein to zero.
Source: Illinois Senate Debate #3: Barack Obama vs. Alan Keyes Oct 21, 2004
Saddam has no connections to Al Qaeda nor to 9/11
Q: Is the Iraq War the right war at the right time?
OBAMA: There was no connection between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda. This war has made us less safe. Osama bin Laden roams free in the hills of Afghanistan.
KEYES: The breathtaking naivete of the assertion that there is no connection between Al Qaeda & Saddam Hussein when Saddam was providing payments to the families of Hamas suicide bombers who had ties to Al Qaeda. I worked on the National Security Council staff. Maybe that's why I understand the situation a little better than Barack Obama. Those ties are real and we cannot afford to let them operate.
OBAMA: I don't think that Mr. Keyes knowledge of the situation is better than Donald Rumsfeld's or the other experts who have confirmed that there was no connection between those who perpetrated the attacks of 9/11 and Iraq. This was an ideologically driven war. But now we do have a hotbed of terrorism to fight in Iraq.
Source: Illinois Senate Debate #3: Barack Obama vs. Alan Keyes Oct 21, 2004
Barack Obama on Iraq War
$2.7 billion each week of Iraq spending is unsustainable
Q: You were opposed to the surge from the beginning. Were you wrong?
A: It is indisputable that we've seen violence reduced in Iraq. That's a credit to our brave men and women in uniform. The 1st Cavalry of Fort Hood played an enormous role in pushing back al Qaeda out of Baghdad. We honor their service. But this is a tactical victory imposed upon a huge strategic blunder. When we're having a debate with McCain, it is going to be much easier for the candidate who was opposed to the concept of invading Iraq in the first place to have a debate about the wisdom of that decision than having to argue about the tactics subsequent to the decision. Not only have we been diverted from Afghanistan, we've been diverted from Latin America. We contribute our entire foreign aid to Latin America is $2.7 billion, approximately what we spend in Iraq in a week. It is any surprise, then, that you've seen people like Hugo Chavez and countries like China move into the void, because we've been neglectful of that.
Source: 2008 Democratic debate at University of Texas in Austin Feb 21, 2008
Humanitarian aid now for displaced Iraqis
Q: Will you use every tool in our country's arsenal to prevent civil war in Iraq after troops are pulled out?
A: If we are doing this right, if we have a phased redeployment where we're as careful getting out as we were careless getting in, then there' not reason why we shouldn't be able to prevent the wholesale slaughter some people have suggested might occur. And part of that means we are engaging in the diplomatic efforts that are required within Iraq, among friends, like Egypt, and Turkey and Saudi Arabia, but also enemies like Iran and Syria. They have to have buy-in into that process. We have to have humanitarian aid now. We also have two-and-a-half million displaced people inside of Iraq and several million more outside of Iraq. We should be ramping up assistance to them right now. But I always reserve the right, in conjunction with a broader international effort, to prevent genocide or any wholesale slaughter than might happen inside of Iraq or anyplace else.
Source: 2008 Politico pre-Potomac Primary interview Feb 11, 2008
The Iraq war has undermined our security
We have spent billions of dollars, lost thousands of lives. Thousands more have been maimed and injured as a consequence and are going to have difficulty putting their lives back together again. This has undermined our security. In the meantime, Afghanistan has slid into more chaos than existed before we went into Iraq.
Source: 2008 Democratic debate in Los Angeles before Super Tuesday Jan 31, 2008
Iraq is distracting us from a host of global threats
It is important for us to be as careful getting out as we were careless getting in. I will end this war. We will not have a permanent occupation and permanent bases in Iraq. When McCain suggests that we might be there 100 years, that indicates a profound lack of understanding that we've got a whole host of global threats out there, including Iraq, but we've got a big problem right now in Afghanistan. Pakistan is of great concern. We are neglecting our foreign policy with respect to Latin America. China is strengthening. If we neglect our economy by spending $200 billion every year in this war that has not made us more safe, that is undermining our long-term security. It is important for us to set a date. Because if we are going to send a signal t the Iraqis that we are serious, and prompt the Shia, Sunni, & Kurds to actually come together & negotiate, they have to have clarity about how serious we are. It can't be muddy or fuzzy. They've got to know that we are serious about this process.
Source: 2008 Democratic debate in Los Angeles before Super Tuesday Jan 31, 2008
End the war, and end the mindset that got us into war
We've got to be very clear about what our mission is. We would make sure that our embassies & our civilians are protected; that we've got to care for Iraqi civilians, including the four million displaced already. We already have a humanitarian crisis, an we have not taken those responsibilities seriously. We need a strike force that can take out potential terrorist bases that get set up in Iraq.
But the one important thing is that we not get mission creep, and we not start suggesting that we should hav troops in Iraq to blunt Iranian influence. If we were concerned about Iranian influence, we should not have had this government installed in the first place. We shouldn't have invaded in the first place. It was part of the reason that it was such a profound strategic error for us to go into this war.
I will offer a clear contrast as somebody who never supported this war. I don't want to just end the war, but I want to end the mindset that got us into war in the first place.
Source: 2008 Democratic debate in Los Angeles before Super Tuesday Jan 31, 2008
We have set the bar so low in Iraq
Q: There has been some stability in parts of Iraq where there was turmoil before and that any quick, overly quick withdrawal could undermine all of that and all of that progress would be for naught. The number of US casualties has gone down. What do you say?
A: I welcome the progress. This notion that Democrats don't want to see progress in Iraq is ridiculous. I have to hug mothers in rope lines during town hall meetings as they weep over their fallen sons and daughters. I want to get our troops home safely, and I want us as a country to have this mission completed honorably. But the notion that somehow we have succeeded as a consequence of the recent reductions in violence means that we have set the bar so low it's buried in the sand at this point. We went from intolerable levels of violence and a dysfunctional government to spikes and horrific levels of violence and a dysfunctional government. Now, two years later, we're back to intolerable levels of violence and a dysfunctional government.
Source: 2008 Democratic debate in Los Angeles before Super Tuesday Jan 31, 2008
The Iraq war was conceptually flawed from the start
It is much easier for us to have the argument, when we have a nominee who says, I always thought this was a bad idea, this was a bad strategy. It was not just a problem of execution. They screwed up the execution of it in all sorts of ways. Even McCain has acknowledged that. Can we make an argument that this was a conceptually flawed mission, from the start? We need better judgment when we decide to send our young men and women into war, that we are making absolutely certain that it is because there is an imminent threat, that American interests are going to be protected, that we have a plan to succeed and to exit, that we are going to train our troops properly and equip them properly and put them on proper rotations and treat them properly when they come home. That is an argument we are going to have an easier time making if they can't turn around and say: But hold on a second; you supported this. That's part of the reason why I would be the strongest nominee on this argument of national security.
Source: 2008 Democratic debate in Los Angeles before Super Tuesday Jan 31, 2008
Title of Iraq war authorization bill stated its intent
The legislation, the authorization had the title, "An Authorization to Use US Military Force in Iraq." Everybody, the day after that vote was taken, understood this was a vote potentially to go to war. Clinton has claimed that she's got the experience on day one. And part of the argument that I'm making in this campaign is that, it is important to be right on day one. The judgment that I've presented on this issue, and some other issues is relevant to how we're going to make decisions in the future. It's not a function just of looking backwards, it's a function of looking forwards and how are we going to be making a series of decisions in a very dangerous world. The terrorist threat is real. And precisely because it's real--and we've got finite resources. We don't have the capacity to just send our troops in anywhere we decide, without good intelligence, without a clear rationale. That's the kind of leadership that we need from the next president of the US. That's what I intend to provide.
Source: 2008 Democratic debate in Los Angeles before Super Tuesday Jan 31, 2008
The surge is not working toward enduring peace
Tonight Pres. Bush said that the surge in Iraq is working, when we know that's just not true. Yes, our valiant soldiers have helped reduce the violence. But let there be no doubt--the Iraqi government has failed to seize the moment to reach compromises necessary for an enduring peace. That was what we were told the surge was all about. So the only way we're finally going to pressure the Iraqis to reconcile and take responsibility for their future is to immediately begin a responsible withdrawal.
Source: Response to 2008 State of the Union address Jan 28, 2008
Iraq takes our eye off al Qaeda & Afghanistan
We need to begin this withdrawal [from Iraq] immediately is because this war has not made us safer. I opposed this war from the start in part because I was concerned that it would take our eye off al Qaeda and distract us from finishing the job in Afghanistan. Sadly, that's what happened. It's time to heed our military commanders by increasing our commitment to Afghanistan, and it's time to protect the American people by taking the fight to al Qaeda.
Source: Response to 2008 State of the Union address Jan 28, 2008
Get our troops out by the end of 2009
I have put forward a plan that will get our troops out by the end of 2009. We already saw today reports that the Iraqi minister suggests that we're going to be in there at least until 2018, a decade-long commitment. Currently, we are spending $9 to $10 billion a month. The notion is that we are going to sustain that at the same time as we're neglecting what we see happening in Afghanistan right now, where you have a luxury hotel in Kabul blown up by militants and the situation continues to worsen.
Source: 2008 Democratic debate in Las Vegas Jan 15, 2008
No permanent bases in Iraq
My first job as president is going to be to call in the Joint Chiefs of Staff to responsibly, carefully, but deliberately start to phase out our involvement there and to make sure that we are putting the onus on the Iraqi government to come together and do what they need to do to arrive at peace. I have been very specific in saying that we will not have permanent bases there. I will end the war as we understand it in combat missions. But that we are going to have to protect our embassy. We're going to have to protect our civilians. We're engaged in humanitarian activity there. We are going to have to have some presence that allows us to strike if Al Qaida is creating bases inside of Iraq. So I cannot guarantee that we're not going to have a strategic interest that I have to carry out as commander-in-chief to maintain some troop presence there, but it is not going to be engaged in a war and it will not be this sort of permanent bases and permanent military occupation that Bush seems to be intent on.
Source: 2008 Democratic debate in Las Vegas Jan 15, 2008
2002: Iraq will require US occupation of undetermined length
Q: [to Clinton]: The same week that you voted for the 2002 resolution on the use of military force against Iraq, Sen. Obama said: "I know that Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the US, or to his neighbors. I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a US occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences. I know that invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale, without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East, and encourage the worst, rather than the best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of al-Qaeda. I am not opposed to all wars. I'm opposed to dumb wars." Who had the better judgment at tha time?
CLINTON: In Sen. Obama's recent book, he clearly says he thought that Saddam Hussein had chemical and biological weapons, and that he still coveted nuclear weapons. By the summer of 2004, Sen. Obama said he wasn't sure how he would have voted.
Source: Meet the Press: 2008 "Meet the Candidates" series Jan 13, 2008
FactCheck: No, violence in Iraq is LOWER than 2 years ago
Obama vastly understated the improvement in the security situation in Iraq when he said, "We saw a spike in the violence, the surge reduced that violence, and we now are, two years later, back where we started two years ago." There was indeed a spike in the violence in Iraq during the last two years that has been receding as of late. Most recently, nearly all statistical indicators show that violence is sharply lower than it was two years ago, according to the Brookings Institution's Iraq Index.
Source: FactCheck.org on 2008 Facebook/WMUR-NH Democratic debate Jan 5, 2008
Congress decides deployment level & duration, not president
Q: Can the president disregard a congressional statute limiting the deployment of troops--either by capping the number of troops, or by setting minimum home-stays between deployments?
A: No, the President does not have that power. To date, several Congresses have imposed limitations on the number of US troops deployed in a given situation. As President, I will not assert a constitutional authority to deploy troops in a manner contrary to an express limit imposed by Congress and adopted into law.
Source: Boston Globe questionnaire on Executive Power Dec 20, 2007
Surge strategy has made a difference in Iraq but failed
Q: Is Petraeus correct when he says that the troop increase is bringing security to Iraq?
A: There is no doubt that because we put American troops in Iraq, more American troops in Iraq, that they are doing a magnificent job. They are making a difference in certain neighborhoods. But the overall strategy is failed because we have not seen any change in behavior among Iraq's political leaders. That is the essence of what we should be trying to do in Iraq. That's why I'm going to bring this war to a close. That's why we can get our combat troops out within 16 months and have to initiate the kind of regional diplomacy, not just talking to our friends, but talking to our enemies, like Iran and Syria, to try to stabilize the situation there. This year, we saw the highest casualty rates for American troops in Iraq since this war started. The same is true in Afghanistan. If we have seen a lowering violence rate, that's only compared to earlier this year. We're back to where we started back in 2006.
Source: 2007 Democratic debate in Las Vegas, Nevada Nov 15, 2007
Introduced bill to redeploy troops in May 2007; it failed
Obama introduced a bill to begin troop redeployment in May of 2007 (it failed, as he must have known it would), but he has been critical of Rep. John Murtha's calls for a quick withdrawal. Again, that strategy: tacking slightly to the left while attackin the Left to make his position seem centrist. He was an early critic of the Iraq invasion, and in the most recent vote to cut off funding for the war he voted yes, but only at the last minute and without comment, following Hillary's lead.]
Source: The Contenders, by Laura Flanders, p. 73 Nov 11, 2007
Clinton has not been consistent on the Iraq War
Q: Was Sen. Clinton's answer to the opposition of the Iraq war question consistent, in your view?
A: I don't think it's consistent with the Iran resolution, for example, which specifically stated that we should structure our forces in Iraq with an eye toward blunting Iranian influence. It is yet another rationale for what we're doing in Iraq, & that's a mistake. We've got to focus on diplomacy. The president has to lead that diplomacy, which is why I've said I would convene a meeting of Muslim leaders upon taking office because I think we have to send a strong signal that we are willing to listen and not just talk, and certainly not just dictate or engage in military action. But the real key for the next president is someone who has the credibility of not having been one of the co-authors of this engagement in Iraq. I am in a strong position to be able to say I thought this was a bad idea in the first place. We now have to fix it. We have to be as careful getting out as we were careless getting in.
Source: 2007 Democratic debate at Drexel University Oct 30, 2007
2002: I don't oppose all war; I do oppose dumb war
On October 26, 2002, Obama said: "I don't oppose all wars. What I am opposed to is a dumb war. What I am opposed to is a rash war. What I am opposed to is the cynical attempt by Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz and other armchair, weekend warriors in this administration to shove their own ideological agendas down our throats, irrespective of the costs in lives lost and in hardships borne. What I am opposed to is the attempt by political hacks like Karl Rove to distract us from a rise in the uninsured, a rise in the poverty rate, a drop in the median income, to distract us from corporate scandals and a stock market that has just gone through the worst month since the Great Depression. That's what I'm opposed to. A dumb war. A war based not on reason but on passion."
In 2002, when Obama opposed war with Iraq, he knew he would run for the Senate in 2004 and this stand might cost him the election. No other major Democratic candidate for president opposed the war before it happened.
Source: The Improbable Quest, by John K. Wilson, p. 43-44 Oct 30, 2007
Leave troops for protection of Americans & counterterrorism
The first thing I will do is initiate a phased redeployment. Military personnel indicate we can get one brigade to two brigades out per month. I would immediately begin that process. We would get combat troops out of Iraq. The only troops that would remain would be those that have to protect US bases and US civilians, as well as to engage in counterterrorism activities in Iraq.
Source: 2007 Democratic primary debate at Dartmouth College Sep 26, 2007
Hopes to remove all troops from Iraq by 2013, but no pledge
Q: Gen. Petraeus and Pres. Bush indicated that in January 2009, there will be 100,000 troops in Iraq. What do you do?
A: I hope and will work diligently in the Senate to bring an end to this war before I take office. And it is very important at this stage, understanding how badly the president's strategy has failed, that we not vote for funding without some timetable for this war. If there are still large troop presences in when I take office, then
Q: Will you pledge that by January 2013, the end of your first term, there will be no US troops in Iraq?
A: I think it's hard to project four years from now, and I think it would be irresponsible. We don't know what contingency will be out there. I believe that we should have all our troops out by 2013, but I don't want to make promises, not knowing what the situation's going to be three or four years out.
Source: 2007 Democratic primary debate at Dartmouth College Sep 26, 2007
Surge has not succeeded because it ignores political issues
Q: What's your assessment of the Gen. Petraeus testimony on Iraq?
A: Well, after hearing two days of testimony, let's be clear on exactly what they said. That after putting an additional 30,000 troops in, far longer & more troops than the president had initially said, we have gone from a horrendous situation of violence in Iraq to the same intolerable levels of violence that we had back in June of 2006. So, essentially, after all this we're back where we were 15 months ago. And what has not happened is any movement with respect to the sort of political accommodations among the various factions, the Shia, the Sunni, and Kurds that were the rationale for surge and that ultimately is going to be what stabilizes Iraq. So, I think it is fair to say that the president has simply tried to gain another six months to continue on the same course that he's been on for several years now. It is a course that will not succeed. It is a course that is exacting an enormous toll on the American people & our troops.
Source: Huffington Post Mash-Up: 2007 Democratic on-line debate Sep 13, 2007
Tell people the truth: quickest is 1-2 brigades per month
RICHARDSON: With all due respect to Sen. Obama & Sen. Clinton, what I heard tonight is that even in their second terms, they will not get the troops out. Therefore, the war will not end.
OBAMA: It is important to tell the American people the truth. Military commanders indicate that they can safely get combat troops out at the pace of one to two brigades a month. That is the quickest pace that we can do it safely. I have said I will begin immediately and we will do it as rapidly as we can.
Source: 2007 Democratic primary debate at Dartmouth College Sep 6, 2007
No good options in Iraq--just bad options & worse options
Q: If you get us out of Iraq and somehow al Qaeda takes over anyway, what will you do then?
A: Well, look, if we had followed my judgment originally, we wouldn't have been in Iraq. We're here now. And we've got no good options. We got bad options and worse options. The only way we're going to stabilize Iraq and make sure that al Qaeda does not take over in the long term is to begin a phased redeployment so that we don't have anti-American sentiment as a focal point for al Qaeda in Iraq. We can still have troops in the region, outside of Iraq, that can help on counterterrorism activities, and we've got to make sure that they don't establish long-term bases there. But right now, the bases are in Afghanistan and in the hills between Afghanistan and Pakistan; that's where we've got to focus.
Source: 2007 AFL-CIO Democratic primary forum Aug 8, 2007
Be as careful getting out as we were careless getting in
Q: How do we pull out now, without opening Iraq up for Iran and Syria?
A: Look, I opposed this war from the start. Because I anticipated that we would be creating the kind of sectarian violence that we've seen and that it would distract us from the war on terror. At this point, I think we can be as careful getting out as we were careless getting in. But we have to send a clear message to the Iraqi government as well as to the surrounding neighbors that there is no military solution to the problems that we face in Iraq. So we have to begin a phased withdrawal; have our combat troops out by March 31st of next year; and initiate the kind of diplomatic surge that is necessary in these surrounding regions to make sure that everybody is carrying their weight. And that is what I will do on day one, as president of the United States, if we have not done it in the intervening months.
Source: 2007 YouTube Democratic Primary debate, Charleston SC Jul 23, 2007
Troops not dying in vain; but we need plans for success
Q: [to Gravel]: Were the deaths of Vietnam in vain?
GRAVEL: Our soldiers died in Vietnam in vain. In Iraq, there's only one thing worse than a soldier dying in vain; it's more soldiers dying in vain.
Q: Are the troops in Iraq dying in vain?
OBAMA: I never think that troops who do their mission for their country, are dying in vain. But what I do think is that the civilian leadership and the commander in chief has a responsibility to make sure that they have the plans that are going to allow our troops to succeed in their mission.
EDWARDS: I don't think any of our troops die in vain when they go and do the duty that's been given to them by the commander in chief. No, I don't think they died in vain. But I think the question is: What is going to be done to stop this war? What we need to do is turn up the heat on George Bush and hold him responsible and make this president change course.
Source: 2007 YouTube Democratic Primary debate, Charleston SC Jul 23, 2007
We live in a more dangerous world because of Bush's actions
We live in a more dangerous world, partly as a consequence of Bush's actions, primarily because of this war in Iraq that should have never been authorized or waged. What we've seen is a distraction from the battles that deal with al Qaeda in Afghanistan. We have created an entire new recruitment network in Iraq, that we're seeing them send folks to Lebanon and Jordan and other areas of the region.
Source: 2007 Dem. debate at Saint Anselm College Jun 3, 2007
Case for war was weak, but people voted their best judgment
Q: Do you think someone who authorized the use of force to go to war in Iraq should be president? A: I don't think it's a disqualifier. I think that people were making their best judgments at the time. When I looked at the issue, what I saw was a weak ca
Source: 2007 Dem. debate at Saint Anselm College Jun 3, 2007
War in Iraq is "dumb" but troops still need equipment
Q: You have called this war in Iraq "dumb." How do you square that position with those who have sacrificed so much? And why have you voted for appropriations for it in the past?
A: I am proud that I opposed this war from the start, because I thought that it would lead to the disastrous conditions that we've seen on the ground in Iraq. What I've also said is if we're going to send hundreds of thousands of our young men and women there, then they have the equipment that they need to make sure that they come home safely. I'm proud of the fact that I put forward a plan in January that mirrors what Congress ultimately adopted. And it says there's no military solution to this. We've got to have a political solution, begin a phased withdrawal, and make certain that we've got benchmarks in place so that the Iraqi people can make a determination about how they want to move forward.
Source: 2007 South Carolina Democratic primary debate, on MSNBC Apr 26, 2007
Increase ground forces in Iraq to decrease troop rotations
Q: What would you consider to be a "mission complete" status in Iraq?
A: One of the enormous difficulties of this war has been the strain it's placed on our men and women in uniform. We have seen our Army and our Reserves and our National Guard all being stretched to a breaking point. That's one of the reasons why I proposed that we're going to have to increase the size of our ground forces, so we can stop the sort of rotations that we've been placing them on, which have been putting enormous strai not only on the soldiers themselves, but also their families. But we are one signature away or 16 votes away from ending this war. Now, if the president is not going to sign the bill that has been sent to him, then what we have to do is gather up 16 votes in order to override his veto. We can't expect that we can continue to impose a military solution on what is essentially a political problem, and that's what we have to organize around.
Source: 2007 South Carolina Democratic primary debate, on MSNBC Apr 26, 2007
Open-ended Iraq occupation must end: no military solution
Q: What is the best and fastest way to get out of Iraq?
A: I opposed this war from the start. In part because I believed that if we gave open-ended authority to invade Iraq in 2002, we would have an open-ended occupation of the sort that we have right now. And I have stated clearly and unequivocally that that open-ended occupation has to end. The idea that the situation in Iraq is improving is simply not credible, and it's not reflective of the facts on the ground. The hard truth is, there's no military solution to this war. Our troops have done all that they have been asked and more, but no amount of American soldiers are gonna solve the political differences that lie in the heart of the sectarian conflict. Extending the surge is just going to put more men and women in the crossfire of a civil war.
Source: Virtual Town Hall on Iraq, sponsored by MoveOn.org Apr 10, 2007
Begin withdrawal May 1 2007; finish by March 31 2008
Since January, I have put forward a very specific plan that is designed to create the last best hope to pressure the Sunni and the Shia to reach political accommodation. That's to let the Iraqi government know that America is not going to be there indefinitely. So, what my plan says is that on May 1st of this year, we need to begin a phased withdrawal from Iraq, with the goal of removing all combat troops by March 31st of next year. And we've got 54 sponsors so far on the bill. We're gonna keep on pushing that agenda.
The withdrawal has to begin soon. It's time to end this war. It's time to refocus our efforts on the wider struggle against terror, and it's time for us to work much more aggressively diplomatically both inside Iraq and regionally if we're gonna see the kind of stability in Iraq that all of us hope for.
Source: Virtual Town Hall on Iraq, sponsored by MoveOn.org Apr 10, 2007
Open dialogue with both Syria and Iran
Q: How would you include Syria and Iran in the effort toward establishing a stable, responsible, and non-hostile government in Iraq?
A: We have to realize that the entire Middle East has a huge stake in the outcome of Iraq, and that we have to engage neighboring countries in finding a solution. Now, I believe that includes opening dialogue both Syria and Iran. We know these countries want us to fail. I'm under no illusions there, but I also know that neither Syria nor Iran want to see a security vacuum in Iraq filled with chaos, and terrorism, and refugees and violence, since those could have a destabilizing effect on the entire region, including within their own countries. So, even as we remain steadfast in our opposition to their support of terrorism, even as we continue to put pressure on Iran to stand down on its nuclear ambitions, it's absolutely critical that we talk to the Syrians and the Iranians about playing a more constructive role in Iraq.
Source: Virtual Town Hall on Iraq, sponsored by MoveOn.org Apr 10, 2007
Withdraw gradually and keep some troops in Iraq region
We must end this war in Iraq. I opposed this war from the beginning--in part because I believed that if we gave this President the open-ended authority to invade Iraq, we would end up with the open-ended occupation we find ourselves in today.
We shouldn't be sending more troops to Iraq, we should be bringing them home. It's time to find an end to this war. That's why I have a plan that will begin withdrawing our troops from Iraq on May 1st of this year, with the goal of removing all of our combat forces from the country by March of 2008.
We have to make sure we're not as careless getting out of this war as we were getting in, and that's why this withdrawal would be gradual, and would keep some US troops in the region to prevent a wider war and go after Al Qaeda and other terrorists.
But above all, it's a plan that recognizes a fact that just about everyone in the world understands except the White House--there is no military solution to this war.
Source: 2007 IAFF Presidential Forum in Washington DC Mar 14, 2007
Iraq 2002: ill-conceived venture; 2007: waste of resources
Obama [delivered] early speeches against the war in Iraq. The looming invasion, he said in 2002, was an ill-conceived venture that would "require a US occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences." Obama's speeches lifted him to statewide prominence and paved the way for his march to the Senate. [In 2007, Obama] renewed his call for the redeployment of American troops in Iraq. "We can't waste our most precious resource--our young men and women."
Source: Hopes and Dreams, by Steve Dougherty, p. 19-20 Feb 15, 2007
Longtime critic of Iraq war
The Illinois senator is a longtime critic of the war, elected to the Senate after the conflict began. In a recent speech, Obama called for a "gradual and substantial" reduction of US forces.
Source: People's Daily (China), "Contenders views on the war" Nov 23, 2006
The surge reduced violence, but at enormous cost
The bar of success has become so low that we've lost perspective on what should be our long-term national interests. It was a mistake to go in from the start, and that's why I opposed this war from the start. It has cost us upwards of $1 trillion. It may get close to $2 trillion. We have lost young men and women on the battlefield, and we have not made ourself safer as a consequence. I had no doubt, and I said when I opposed the surge, that given how wonderfully our troops perform, if we place 30,000 more troops in there, then we would see an improvement in the security situation and we would see a reduction in the violence. We started in 2006 with intolerable levels of violence and a dysfunctional government. We saw a spike in the violence. The surge reduced that violence, and we now are, two years later, back where we started two years ago. We have gone full circle at enormous cost to the American people.
Source: 2008 Facebook/WMUR-NH Democratic primary debate Jan 6, 2006
Begin a phased redeployment to send a clear signal
What we have to do is to begin a phased redeployment to send a clear signal to the Iraqi government that we are not going to be there in perpetuity. We should be as careful getting out as we were careless getting in. I welcome the reductions of violence that have taken place, although I would point out that much of that violence has been reduced because there was an agreement with tribes in Anbar province. Sunni tribes, who started to see, after the Democrats were elected in 2006, the Americans may be leaving soon. We should start negotiating now. That's how you change behavior. That's why I will send a clear signal to the Iraqi government. They will have ample time to actually pass an oil law, which they've been talking about now for years. We can't continue to ignore the enormous strains that this has placed on the American taxpayer, as well as the anti-American sentiment that it is fanning, and the neglect that's happening in Afghanistan as a consequence.
Source: 2008 Facebook/WMUR-NH Democratic primary debate Jan 6, 2006
Saddam did not own and was not providing WMD to terrorists
It's simply not true that Saddam was providing weapons of mass destruction to terrorists. This incursion into Iraq has resulted in a situation in which terrorist recruits are up. It's been acknowledged, now, by the Pentagon, that the insurgents active in Iraq are far higher. Terrorist attacks worldwide are the highest in 20 years. The notion that somehow we're less vulnerable in the US as a consequence of spending 200 billion dollars and sacrificing thousands of lives is simply not borne out by the facts
Source: IL Senate Debate Oct 26, 2004
Initial military was extraordinarily successful in Iraq
Q: What has been the biggest success in Iraq?
A: The initial military was extraordinarily successful in moving into Iraq, and it exceeded all expectations, even those of us who expected the military to be successful were stunned and impressed by how efficient our military and our brave fighting forces were in executing it. But missing 380 tons of explosives being used on roadside bombs is an enormous error, particularly when the Bush administration had been warned by the Atomic Energy Commission. Keyes has suggested that somehow I'm na‹ve to question how we've gone about this war in Iraq. It strikes me that the Bush administration has been na‹ve throughout. It was na‹ve to think that we'd be greeted as liberators in Iraq. It's been na‹ve in thinking that somehow this would actually diminish recruitment for terrorism. In fact, it's accelerated it. It's been na‹ve with respect to how difficult it's gonna be to secure the peace, and our troops and our taxpayers are suffering from those errors.
Source: IL Senate Debate Oct 26, 2004
Invading Iraq was a bad strategic blunder
If a driver of a car, your car, drives it into a ditch, there are only so many ways to pull it out. And so, Kerry is going to be doing many similar things to what Bush is doing in terms of making sure that we do the best we can in Iraq. That doesn't mean we don't fire the driver, and it doesn't mean that we don't examine carefully what lead us to be in this ditch in the first place. It was a bad strategic blunder-and that's not simply my estimation. That's the estimation of a number of Republicans.
Source: IL Senate Debate, Illinois Radio Network Oct 12, 2004
We must make sure that Iraq is stable having gone in there
Q: You're in favor of keeping troops in Iraq. How long?
A: The War on Terror has to be vigorously fought. Where we part company is how to fight it, because Afghanistan in fact was not a preemptive war, it was a war launched directly against those who were responsible for 9/11. Iraq was a preemptive war based on faulty evidence-and I say that not in hindsight, or Monday-morning quarterbacking. Six months before the war was launched, I questioned the evidence that would lead to us being there. Now, us having gone in there, we have a deep national security interest in making certain that Iraq is stable. If not, not only are we going to have a humanitarian crisis, we are also going to have a huge national security problem on our hands-because, ironically, it has become a hotbed of terrorists as a consequence, in part, of our incursion there. In terms of timetable, I'm not somebody who can say with certainty that a year from now or six months from now we're going to be able to pull down troops.
Source: IL Senate Debate, Illinois Radio Network Oct 12, 2004
Advance the training speed and get the reconstruction moving
1. We have to do three things in Iraq. We have to advance the speed with which we are training Iraqi troops and security forces so that they can stabilize the country, and that's going to require our help.
2. But it's also going to require the help of the international community, which is why we have to internationalize this process. I'm under no illusions that the Germans and the French are going to be sending troops in any time soon, but we can get them to put more resources into the training and infrastructure required to secure the Iraqi borders and the Iraqi streets.
3. Finally, it's important that we get our reconstruction moving. The reconstruction process that has taken place has been completely inept. And that's not simply my estimation, that's the estimation of the two ranking Republican Senators on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, who issued a blistering attack on the Bush administration. Highly unusual and it indicates how badly botched this job has been.
Source: IL Senate Debate, Illinois Radio Network Oct 12, 2004
Democratizing Iraq will be more difficult than Afghanistan
Q: Afghanistan has just conducted the first elections in its 5,000-year history. They appear to have gone very well-at least, up to this point. Is that not a hopeful sign for Iraq, and for the elections that we may be seeing there in January?
A: It is an absolutely hopeful sign for the people of Afghanistan. As I have stated unequivocally, I have always thought that we did the right thing in Afghanistan. My only concerns with respect to Afghanistan was that we diverted our attention from Afghanistan in terms of moving into Iraq, and I think would could have done a better job of stabilizing that country than we have in providing assistance to the Afghani people. All of us should be rooting for the Afghani people & making sure that we are providing them the support to make things happen. With respect to Iraq, it's going to be a tougher play. I don't think any of us should be rooting for failure in Iraq at this point. This is no longer Bush's war, this is our war, and we all have a stake in it.
Source: IL Senate Debate, Illinois Radio Network Oct 12, 2004
Never fudge numbers or shade the truth about war
I thought of families I'd met struggling to get by without a loved one's full income, or whose loved ones had returned with a limb missing or nerves shattered, but who still lacked long-term health benefits because they were reservists. We have a solemn obligation not to fudge the numbers or shade the truth about why they're going, to care for their families while they're gone, to tend to the soldiers upon their return, and to never ever go to war without enough troops to win the war & secure the peace.
Source: Keynote speech to the Democratic National Convention Jul 29, 2004
Set a new tone to internationalize the Iraqi reconstruction
Many families have got reservists, National Guardsmen, the sons, daughters, uncles, and aunts of people who are in Iraq for 18 months. They don't see an exit strategy. They're deeply troubled about how we got into the war. Kerry is going to have to offer the ability for his administration to be able to set a new tone, re-establish the kinds of relationships with our allies that allow us to internationalize the reconstruction process, make sure that Iraq succeeds and allow our troops eventually to get out
Source: Meet The Press, NBC News Jul 25, 2004
Iraq war was sincere but misguided, ideologically driven
The war in Iraq was an ideologically driven war. I think Bush was sincere and is sincere about his desire to maintain a strong America, but there was a single-mindedness to this process that has led our country into a very difficult position. It's a consequence of that single-mindedness that we did not create the kind of international framework that would have allowed success once we decided to go in. I think that this administration is sincere but I think it's misguided.
Source: Meet The Press, NBC News Jul 25, 2004
Not opposed to all wars, but opposed to the war in Iraq
Obama has been very forthright in his opposition to the war. He spoke in an anti-war rally in October 2002. Very well attended, very large rally, and he said some powerful words that were strongly against the war. I think he gained a lot of supporters from that particular speech. He was so clear in his opposition and yet not in any way negative. He didn't use the traditional kind of code words that people who oppose the war were using. He did it in a way that attracted people who normally would be gung ho for military action . He said he wasn't against all wars and he went against much of what was being said on the podium, but he did it in such a considerate and intelligent way that even those who wanted more raw meat were satisfied with his speech. In fact, most were captivated by the way he presented himself.
Source: Salim Muwakkil and Amy Goodman, Democracy Now Jul 15, 2004
International voice in Iraq in exchange for debt forgiveness
[We should] confront the challenge of returning sovereignty to the Iraqi people. We must leave behind a government that has enough legitimacy and political support from all three factions-the Kurds, Sunnis and Shia-to survive on its own. The best path to that is through free and fair elections and a constitution that preserves minority rights. For these elections to take place next year, as scheduled, there must be sufficient security in the country and, therefore, we must maintain a strong military presence while encouraging the interim government to hold elections as soon as possible. We must also encourage international involvement in this process by giving them a meaningful voice and role in Iraqi affairs and fair access to multi-billion dollar reconstruction contracts. In return, they must forgive Saddam's multi-billion dollar debts to their countries and help pay the reconstruction costs.
Source: Press Release, "Renewal of American Leadership " Jul 12, 2004
Barack Obama on Trouble Spots
Two-state solution: Israel & Palestine side-by-side in peace
* Renewing American Diplomacy: Obama will talk to our foes as well as our friends, and he will restore American leadership and alliances abroad.
* Israeli-Palestinian Conflict: Obama will make progress on the Israeli- Palestinian conflict a key diplomatic priority. He will make a sustained push--working with Israelis and Palestinians--to achieve the goal of two states, a Jewish state in Israel and a Palestinian state, living side by side in peace and security.
Source: Campaign booklet, "Blueprint for Change", p. 50-55 Feb 2, 2008
Al Qaida is based in northwest Pakistan; strike if needed
Q: You said back in August you would go into western Pakistan if you had actionable intelligence to go after it, whether or not the Pakistani government agreed. Do you stand by that?
A: I absolutely do stand by it. We should do everything in our power to push and cooperate with the Pakistani government in taking on Al Qaida, which is now based in northwest Pakistan. And what we know from our national intelligence estimates is that Al Qaida is stronger now than at any time since 2001. And so, back in August, I said we should work with the Pakistani government, first of all to encourage democracy in Pakistan so you've got a legitimate government, and secondly that we have to press them to do more to take on Al Qaida in their territory; and if they could not or would not do so, and we had actionable intelligence, then I would strike. The two heads of the 9/11 Commission a few months later wrote an editorial saying the exact same thing. I think it's indisputable that that should be our course.
Source: 2008 Facebook/WMUR-NH Democratic primary debate Jan 6, 2008
No action against Iran without Congressional authorization
Q: In what circumstances would the president have constitutional authority to bomb Iran without seeking a use-of-force authorization from Congress?
A: The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation. In instances of self-defense, the President would be within his constitutional authority to act before advising Congress or seeking its consent. History has shown us time and again, however, that military action is most successful when it is authorized and supported by the Legislative branch. It is always preferable to have the informed consent of Congress prior to any military action. As for the specific question about bombing suspected nuclear sites, I recently introduced S.J.Res.23, which states in part that "any offensive military action taken by the United States against Iran must be explicitly authorized by Congress."
Source: Boston Globe questionnaire on Executive Power Dec 20, 2007
Iran: Bush does not let facts get in the way of ideology
Q: Do you agree with the president's assessment that Iran still poses a threat?
A: It is absolutely clear that Pres. Bush continues to not let facts get in the way of his ideology. And that's been the problem with the administration's foreign policy generally. It is important for the president to lead diplomatic efforts, to try to offer to Iran the prospect of joining the World Trade Organization, potential normalized relations over time, in exchange for changes in behavior.
Source: 2007 Des Moines Register Democratic debate Dec 13, 2007
Meet directly for diplomacy with the leadership in Iran
Q: In March you voted for a Senate resolution that said: "The Secretary of State should designate the Iranian Revolutionary Guards as a Foreign Terrorist Organization." But you contend that the language in the Sep. 26 2007 resolution is 'saber-rattling', because it said it is the "critical national interest of the US" to stop Iran from creating a Hezbollah-like force in Iraq.
A: Look, there's a broader issue at stake here, and that is how do we approach Iran? I have said, unlike Senator Clinton, that I would meet directly with the leadership in Iran. I believe that we have not exhausted the diplomatic efforts that could be required to resolve some of these problems--them developing nuclear weapons, them supporting terrorist organizations like Hezbollah and Hamas. That does not mean that we take other options off the table, but it means that we move forward aggressively with a dialogue with them about not only the sticks that we're willing to apply, but also the carrots.
Source: Meet the Press: 2007 "Meet the Candidates" series Nov 11, 2007
Committed to Iran not having nuclear weapons
Q: Would you pledge that Iran will not develop a nuclear bomb while you are president?
A: We are committed to Iran not having nuclear weapons. We have been governed by fear for the last 6 years. Bush has used the fear of terrorism to launch a war that should have never been authorized. We are seeing the same pattern now. It is very important for us to draw a clear line and say, "We are not going to be governed by fear. We will take threats seriously and take action to make sure that the US is secure."
Source: 2007 Democratic debate at Drexel University Oct 30, 2007
Iran military resolution sends the region a wrong signal
That is a continuation of the kinds of foreign policy that rejects diplomacy and sees military action as the only tool available to us to influence the region. What we should be doing is reaching out aggressively to our allies, talking to our enemies and focusing on those areas where we do not accept their actions, whether it be terrorism or developing nuclear weapons, and talking to Iran directly about the potential carrots that we can provide in terms of them being involved in the World Trade Organization, or beginning to look at the possibilities of diplomatic relations being normalized. We have not made those serious attempts. This kind of resolution does not send the right signal to the region. It doesn't send the right signal to our allie or our enemies. As a consequence, over the long term, it weakens our capacity to influence Iran. There may come a point where those measures have been exhausted & Iran is on the verge of obtaining a nuclear weapon, where we have to consider other options
Source: 2007 Democratic debate at Drexel University Oct 30, 2007
Deal with al Qaeda on Pakistan border, but not with nukes
Q: [to Clinton]: You criticized Sen. Obama for ruling out the use of nuclear weapons against Al Qaida in Pakistan, yet you said the same against Bush's use of tactical nuclear weapons in Iran, saying: "I would certainly take nuclear weapons off the table." What's the difference there?
CLINTON: I was asked specifically about the Bush-Cheney administration's policy to drum up support for military action against Iran. Combine that with their continuing effort to try to get "bunker-buster" nuclear bombs that could penetrate into the earth to go after deeply buried nuclear sites. This was not a hypothetical, this was a brushback against this administration which has been reckless and provocative.
Q: Do you accept that distinction?
OBAMA: There was no difference. It is not hypothetical that Al Qaida has established base camps in the hills between Afghanistan and Pakistan. No military expert would advise that we use nuclear weapons to deal with them, but we do have to deal with that problem.
Source: 2007 Democratic primary debate on "This Week" Aug 19, 2007
Get al Qaeda hiding in hills between Afghanistan & Pakistan
OBAMA: We know right now, according to the National Intelligence Estimate, that al Qaeda is hiding in the hills between Afghanistan & Pakistan. And because we have taken our eye off the ball, they are stronger now than any time since 2001. As president, I want us to fight on the right battlefield, and what that means is getting out Iraq and refocusing our attention on the war that can be one in Afghanistan. And that also will allow us to free up the kinds of resources that will make us safer here at home because we'll be able to invest in port security, chemical plant security, all the critical issues that have already been discussed.
DODD: I think it's highly irresponsible to suggest we may be willing unilaterally to invade a nation who we're trying to get to be more cooperative with us in Afghanistan and elsewhere.
CLINTON: I think it is a very big mistake to telegraph that and to destabilize the Musharraf regime, which is fighting for its life against the Islamic extremists.
Source: 2007 AFL-CIO Democratic primary forum Aug 8, 2007
Military action in Pakistan if we have actionable intel
Q: [to Dodd]: If we have actionable intelligence on al Qaeda operatives, including bin Laden, [within Pakistan], and President Musharraf cannot act, then we should. Now, I think that's just common sense. For us to authorize [military action in Iraq] where the people who attacked 3,000 Americans were not present--which you authorized--and then to suggest that somehow we should not focus on the folks that did attack 3,000 Americans, [al Qaeda in Pakistan, makes no sense].
DODD: It was a mistake to suggest somehow that going in unilaterally here into Pakistan was somehow in our interest. That is dangerous. And I don't retreat from that at all.
OBAMA: I did not say that we would immediately go in unilaterally. What I said was that we have to work with Musharraf, because the biggest threat to American security right now are in the northwest provinces of Pakistan and that we should continue to give him military aid contingent on him doing something about that.
Source: 2007 AFL-CIO Democratic primary forum Aug 8, 2007
FactCheck: Yes, Obama said invade Pakistan to get al Qaeda
Sen. Obama rewrote history when he defended his controversial remarks about invading Pakistan if necessary to eliminate al Qaeda, saying, "I did not say that we would immediately go in unilaterally. What I said was that we have to work with [Pakistan's President Pervez] Musharraf."
That's not exactly what he said. Obama is referring to an Aug. 1 policy address, in which he made no direct mention of working with Musharraf. Instead, he said he would "take out" al Qaeda if Musharraf failed to act.
Obama (Aug. 1):
I understand that President Musharraf has his own challenges. But let me make this clear. There are terrorists holed up in those mountains who murdered 3,000 Americans. They are plotting to strike again. It was a terrible mistake to fail to act when we had a chance to take out an al Qaeda leadership meeting in 2005. If we have actionable intelligence about high value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won't act, we will.
Source: FactCheck.org on 2007 AFL-CIO Democratic primary forum Aug 7, 2007
Focus on battle in Afghanistan and root out al Qaeda
One of the things that I think is critical, as the next president, is to make absolutely certain that we not only phase out the Iraq but we also focus on the critical battle that we have in Afghanistan and root out al Qaeda. If we do not do that, then we're going to potentially see another attack here in the US.
Source: 2007 Dem. debate at Saint Anselm College Jun 3, 2007
Bush cracked down on some terrorists' financial networks
Bush has cracked down on some of the terrorists' financial networks; I think that is important. They have unfortunately not strengthened our alliances with other countries, and one of the most important things that we're going to have to do to be successful in rooting out these networks is to make sure that we have the cooperation of other nations. That is not something that we've done, and the effort in Iraq has greatly weakened our efforts there.
Source: 2007 Dem. debate at Saint Anselm College Jun 3, 2007
Iraq has distracted us from Taliban in Afghanistan
Afghanistan is an area where we should be focusing. NATO has made real contributions there. Unfortunately, because of the distraction of Iraq, we have not finished the job in terms of making certain that we are driving back the Taliban, stabilizing the Karzai government, capturing bin Laden and making sure that we've rooted out terrorism in that region.
Source: 2007 South Carolina Democratic primary debate, on MSNBC Apr 26, 2007
Iran with nuclear weapons is a profound security threat
KUCINICH: You previously said that all options are on the table with respect to Iran. That means you're setting the stage for another war. We're in Iraq for oil. We're looking at attacking Iran for oil.
OBAMA: I think it would be a profound mistake for us to initiate a war with Iran. But, have no doubt, Iran possessing nuclear weapons will be a major threat to us and to the region. They're in the process of developing it. And I don't think that's disputed by any expert. They are the largest state sponsor of terrorism, of Hezbollah and Hamas.
KUCINICH: It is disputed.
OBAMA: There is no contradiction between us taking seriously the need, as you do, to want to strengthen our alliances around the world--but I think it is important for us to also recognize that if we have nuclear proliferators around the world that potentially can place a nuclear weapon into the hands of terrorists, that is a profound security threat for America and one that we have to take seriously.
Source: 2007 South Carolina Democratic primary debate, on MSNBC Apr 26, 2007
We are playing to Osama's plan for winning a war from a cave
The struggle against Islamic-based terrorism will be not simply a military campaign but a battle for public opinion in the Islamic world, among our allies & in the US. Osama bin Laden understands that he cannot defeat the US in a conventional war. What h & his allies can do is inflict enough pain to provoke a reaction of the sort we've seen in Iraq--a botched & ill-advised US military incursion into a Muslim country, which in turn spurs on insurgencies based on religious sentiment & nationalist pride, which in turn necessitates a lengthy & difficult US occupation. All of this fans anti-American sentiment among Muslims, & increases the pool of potential terrorist recruits.
That's the plan for winning a war from a cave, & so far, we are playing to script. To change that script, we'll need to make sure that any exercise of American military power helps rather than hinders our broader goals: to incapacitate the destructive potential of terrorist networks and win this global battle of ideas.
Source: The Audacity of Hope, by Barack Obama, p.307 Oct 1, 2006
Al Qaida is stronger than before thanks to the Bush doctrine
Part of the reason that we neglected Afghanistan, part of the reason that we didn't go after bin Laden as aggressively as we should have is we were distracted by a war of choice. That's the flaw of the Bush doctrine. It wasn't that he went after those who attacked America. It was that he went after those who didn't. As a consequence, we have been bogged down, paid extraordinary--an extraordinary price in blood and treasure, and we have fanned the anti- American sentiment that actually makes it more difficult for us to act in Pakistan. It is absolutely true that we have to, as much as possible, get Pakistan's agreement before we act. And that's always going to be the case. But we have to make sure that we do not hesitate to act when it comes to Al Qaida. Because they are currently stronger than they were at any time since 2001, partly because we took our eye off the ball.
Source: 2008 Facebook/WMUR-NH Democratic primary debate Jan 6, 2006
Terrorists are in Saudi Arabia, Syria, and Iran
OBAMA: The Bush administration could not find a connection between Saddam and Al Qaeda. WMD are not found in Iraq. And so, it is absolutely true that we have a network of terrorists, but it takes a huge leap of logic to suddenly suggest that that means that we invade Iraq. Saudi Arabia has a whole bunch of terrorists, so have Syria and Iran, and all across the globe. To mount full-scale invasions as a consequence is a bad strategy. It makes more sense for us to focus on those terrorists who are active to try to roll them up where we have evidence that in fact these countries are being used as staging grounds that would potentially cause us eminent harm, and then we go in. The US has to reserve all military options in facing such an imminent threat- but we have to do it wisely.
KEYES: That's the fallacy, because you did make an argument just then from the wisdom of hindsight, based on conclusions reached now which were not in Bush's hands several months ago when he had to make this decision.
Source: [Xref Obama] IL Senate Debate, Illinois Radio Network Oct 12, 2004
Problems with current Israeli policy
Obama will speak before a Jewish audience and talk about his problems with Israeli policy in a way that inspires trust, rather than the kind of disagreement that you often find when that happens.
Source: Salim Muwakkil and Amy Goodman, Democracy Now Jul 15, 2004
Engage North Korea in 6-party talks
[We should] address the threat posed by North Korea. By refusing to negotiate with North Korea for three and half years, experts believe that North Korea may now be close to having six to eight nuclear weapons. We must immediately insist on complete and verifiable elimination of North Korea's nuclear capability, engage in Six-Party bilateral talks, and facilitate a reform agenda that is broader than denuclearization to address humanitarian concerns.
Source: Press Release, "Renewal of American Leadership " Jul 12, 2004
Use moral authority to work towards Middle East peace
[The US should] use American moral authority and credibility to help achieve Middle East peace. Our first and immutable commitment must be to the security of Israel, our only true ally in the Middle East and the only democracy. We must be consistent and we must include the EU and the Arab States in pressing for reforms within the Palestinian community.
Source: Press Release, "Renewal of American Leadership " Jul 12, 2004
Barack Obama on Voting Record
Voted to fund war until 2006; now wants no blank check
Q: Some involved in the anti-movement have said that in 2004, 2005, 2006 Barack Obama voted to fund the war; that you were not a leader in trying to stop the war until you ran for president and had a sense of the anti-war fervor in the Democratic base. Where was the leadership?
A: I disagree with that. Throughout I was a constant critic. It is true that my preference would not be to end this war simply by cutting off funding. My preference would be for the president to recognize that we needed to change course, and that was what I continually pushed for. At the point where we realized the president was not willing to change course, I put forward a very clear timetable for when we should remove our troops. And, when that was vetoed, I then suggested that the only way to negotiate a different direction in Iraq is by not giving Bush a blank check when it comes to funding.
Q: You have changed now in your support of cutting off funding.
A: But I haven't changed in my opposition to the war.
Source: Meet the Press: 2007 "Meet the Candidates" series Nov 11, 2007
Late to vote against war is not late to oppose war
EDWARDS: Obama voted late for the timetable for withdrawl; a lack of leadership.
OBAMA: I opposed this war from the start. So Edwards is about 4-1/2 years late on leadership on this issue. It's important not to play politics on something that is as critical and as difficult as this. It is not easy to vote for cutting off funding because the fact is there are troops on the ground. All of us exercise our best judgment, just as we exercised our best judgment to authorize or not authorize this war.
Source: 2007 Dem. debate at Saint Anselm College Jun 3, 2007
Spending on the Cold War relics should be for the veterans
Keep in mind that there is a difference between the Pentagon budget and the size of the military. So it may be that, for example, there are weapon systems that are outmoded relics of the Cold War; but what I want to make certain of is, is that our troops are not going on these repeated tours, lengthy tours, that we are providing them with all the support they need when they're on the ground. And we can't do that currently. When they come home we are treating them with the dignity and honor that they deserve. Whether you were for the war or against the war, we can all agree to, and the Bush administration has not done that because they tried to do it on the cheap. Folks who have Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder, folks who have disability payments that are due are not getting the kinds of services they deserve. I have some specific plans to address that.
Source: 2007 Dem. debate at Saint Anselm College Jun 3, 2007
Would have voted no to authorize the President to go to war
I would have voted not to authorize the president to go to war given the facts as I saw them at that time. But, as I said, I wasn't there and what is absolutely clear as we move forward is that if we don't have a change in tone & a change in administration, I think we're going to have trouble making sure that our troops are secure and that we succeed in Iraq.
Source: Meet The Press, NBC News Jul 25, 2004
Voted YES on redeploying US troops out of Iraq by March 2008.
Begins the phased redeployment of US forces from Iraq within 120 days of enactment of this joint resolution with the goal of redeploying by March 31, 2008, all US combat forces from Iraq, except for a limited number essential for protecting US and coalition personnel and infrastructure, training and equipping Iraqi forces, and conducting targeted counter-terrorism operations. Such redeployment shall be implemented as part of a diplomatic, political, and economic strategy that includes sustained engagement with Iraq's neighbors and the international community in order to bring stability to Iraq.
Proponents recommend voting YES because:
Our troops are caught in the midst of a civil war. The administration has begun to escalate this war with 21,000 more troops. This idea is not a new one. During this war, four previous surges have all failed. It is time for a different direction. It is time for a drawdown of our troops.
Opponents recommend voting NO because:
This resolution calls for imposing an artificial timeline to withdraw our troops from Iraq, regardless of the conditions on the ground or the consequences of defeat; a defeat that will surely be added to what is unfortunately a growing list of American humiliations. This legislation would hobble American commanders in the field and substantially endanger America's strategic objective of a unified federal democratic Iraq that can govern, defend, and sustain itself and be an ally in the war against Islamic fascism. The unintended consequence of this resolution is to bring to reality Osama bin Laden's vision for Iraq; that after 4 years of fighting in Iraq the US Congress loses its will to fight. If we leave Iraq before the job is done, as surely as night follows day, the terrorists will follow us home. Osama bin Laden has openly said: America does not have the stomach to stay in the fight. He is a fanatic. He is an Islamic fascist. He is determined to destroy us and our way of life.
Reference: US Policy in Iraq Resolution; Bill S.J.Res.9 ; vote number 2007-075 on Mar 15, 2007
Voted NO on redeploying troops out of Iraq by July 2007.
Voting YEA on this amendment would establish a timetable for withdrawal from Iraq. Voting NAY would keep the current situation without a timetable. The amendment states:
1. The President shall redeploy, commencing in 2006, US forces from Iraq by July 1, 2007, leaving only the minimal number of forces that are critical to completing the mission of standing up Iraqi security forces and conducting specialized counterterrorism operations.
2. The President should maintain an over-the-horizon troop presence to prosecute the war on terror and protect regional security interests.
3. Within 30 days, the administration shall submit to Congress a report that sets forth the strategy for the redeployment of US forces from Iraq by July 1, 2007.
* Opponents of the Resolution say: This amendment would withdraw American forces from Iraq without regard to the real conditions on the ground.
* The consequences of an American retreat would be terrible for the security of the American people at home.
* Our commitment is not open-ended. It is conditional on the Iraqis moving toward self-government and self-defense.
* Supporters of the Resolution say: Congress talks almost incessantly about the situation in Iraq as if on 9/11 the situation involved Iraq. Of course, it didn't. We were attacked by al-Qaida operating out of Afghanistan on 9/11.
* One of the theories we hear is that somehow staying in Iraq is necessary because all the terrorists will come into Iraq, and then they wouldn't be able to attack us anywhere else. Some call this the roach-motel theory. The fact is, al-Qaida is operating in 60 to 80 countries. Yet our resources are only heavily focused on this Iraq situation.
* In terms of differences from other Iraq amendments: This is binding, not just a sense of the Senate.
* Secondly, we have a date; other amendments are open-ended.
* Thirdly, this has an over-the-horizon force specifically to protect our security interests.
Reference: Kerry Amendment to National Defense Authorization Act; Bill S.Amdt. 4442 to S. 2766 ; vote number 2006-181 on Jun 22, 2006
Voted YES on investigating contract awards in Iraq & Afghanistan.
To establish a special committee of the Senate to investigate the awarding and carrying out of contracts to conduct activities in Afghanistan and Iraq and to fight the war on terrorism. Voting YES would: create Senate special committee to investigate war contracts, taking into consideration: bidding, methods of contracting, subcontracting, oversight procedures, allegations of wasteful practices, accountability and lessons learned in Afghanistan and Iraq. -
-
Re: Obama Lays Out Plans for Continued War
Tue, July 15, 2008 - 1:26 AMNow, should i take that line for line and show you where i think hes being an idiot?
or will you take my word for it?
-
-
Unsu...
Re: Obama Lays Out Plans for Continued War
Tue, July 15, 2008 - 1:28 AMPrometheus claims, "It IS lying when its not the truth. Obama is not pro war, hes against war".
This is the lie, but I won't call prometheus a liar, because I know he most likely only believes this because he's been lied to.
As Obama says in calling for more war in Afghanistan and Pakistan, "Ending the war [in Iraq] is essential to meeting our broader strategic goals, starting in Afghanistan and Pakistan [...] As president, I would pursue a new strategy, and begin by providing at least two additional combat brigades to support our effort in Afghanistan. We need more troops, more helicopters [...]"
Obama keeps voting more and more money for war, wants to escalate the war in Afghanistan, send troops into Pakistan, is already threatening Iran with war, will never fully pull out of Iraq and only promises to pull out most troops in two years after an extended gradual re-deployment of troops to other wars, will continue to use murderous Blackwater mercenaries in Iraq, and promises billions in military aid to Israel. Enough said. It is a is a lie to say Obama is against war. -
-
Unsu...
Re: Obama Lays Out Plans for Continued War
Tue, July 15, 2008 - 1:32 AMAnd what did I say about all this spam? You're spamming us with cuts and pastes Prometheus. Are you just trying to flood this discussion with junk so that people don't see how silly you've sounded?
-
-
Re: Obama Lays Out Plans for Continued War
Tue, July 15, 2008 - 1:50 AMPrometheus claims, "It IS lying when its not the truth. Obama is not pro war, hes against war".
This is the lie, but I won't call prometheus a liar, because I know he most likely only believes this because he's been lied to.
--------
Again, thats silly, i'm ten times the independent thinker that you are, and thats saying a lot, cuz your off the deep end.
----------
Obama keeps voting more and more money for war, wants to escalate the war in Afghanistan, send troops into Pakistan, is already threatening Iran with war, will never fully pull out of Iraq and only promises to pull out most troops in two years after an extended gradual re-deployment of troops to other wars, will continue to use murderous Blackwater mercenaries in Iraq, and promises billions in military aid to Israel. Enough said. It is a is a lie to say Obama is against war.
---------
No. The problem is you are thinking in black and white. Its not a black and white universe. Theres a whole lot of grey out there.
In fact there are thousands of shades the eye sees as grey and only a few gradiations we can see as white or black.
But then, guess what? Even the blackest black or the whitest white is still scientifically grey.
You have created an either/ or duality, a false dillemma. Obamas ideas are dumb, short sighted, and two dimensional. Compared
to me. And for the benefit of the doubt, compared to you. But compared to Mccain, hes practically Ghandi.
----------- -
-
Re: Obama Lays Out Plans for Continued War
Tue, July 15, 2008 - 1:52 AMAnd what did I say about all this spam? You're spamming us with cuts and pastes Prometheus. Are you just trying to flood this discussion with junk so that people don't see how silly you've sounded?
----------
No, I am making a point, which you are evading. The more you evade, the more i'll post.
Cognitive dissonance. calling it "irrelevant" as per your other post is silly. Its more than relevant, you just don't want to see the truth.
Polarization is relevant because its the logical fallacy and cognitive error by which you are operating.
-
-
Unsu...
Re: Obama Lays Out Plans for Continued War
Wed, July 16, 2008 - 7:20 PMPrometheus says, "No, I am making a point, which you are evading. The more you evade, the more i'll post."
Well, you’re making your point perfectly obscure and burying it in a bunch of crap nobody will ever read.
But it is you who is disconnected with reality, and unable to cope with the simple fact that Obama is pro-war. Cognitive dissonance indeed. -
-
Re: Obama Lays Out Plans for Continued War
Thu, July 17, 2008 - 10:05 AMWell, you’re making your point perfectly obscure and burying it in a bunch of crap nobody will ever read.
-----------
some will, some won't. Those that don't have no just cause to respond in ignorance;
and are not keeping up their responsibility to the conversation.
---------
Cognitive dissonance indeed.
---------
Yes, you refuse to look at the facts, and then you presume to tell me what they are.
THEN, you try to pretend that i'm at fault for over loading your poor little brain.
When you make a choice to ignore the facts and ignore the truth, that is your choice. All i can do is present the information.
If you continue to refuse to pay attention, then it is you who is behaving in an insane fashion to preserve your prejudgment.
The information which i have posted proves that obama is in fact at the very least war neutral. I am willing to concede that he is not anti war
either. The truth is, hes got a nuanced position which is neither pro nor con war itself, but which is pro security, and which (unfortunately)
bows to "centrism" ie; far right before social entropy drags the far right further right.
Your desire to diabolize him at any cost, and to ignore the simple fact that he is a human being and to ignore the simple facts of his positions, shows that you are guilty of cognitive dissonance, propagandism, distortion, and, lies.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Re: Obama Lays Out Plans for Continued War
Tue, July 15, 2008 - 12:54 AMwww.thenewiq.com/integrity...-spin-goes
Home » Blogs » David's blog
And the Spin Goes On...
I make a point of being on the e-mail lists for both the McCain and Obama campaigns. I make a point of listening to conservative and progressive radio. I don't do this to hurt myself (though sometimes it does feel that way, I must confess!). I do this because as an Integrity Analyst in this Age of Spin I feel an obligation to be aware of the spin being generated by both ends of the dysfunctionally polarized political spectrum.
On June 6, 2008, I received an e-mail from the McCain campaign inviting me to look at a new feature on the McCain for President website called the Decision Center (www.johnmccain.com/decisioncenter). Its stated purpose is to "compare and contrast John McCain to Barack Obama on critical issues facing our nation."
I went to the page extremely curious to see how much integrity it was going to have. I was extremely disappointed to see that this page was a Spin Center rather than a Decision Center, just like most of these kinds of alleged voter information sources have done in the past across the political spectrum. (Now, before I go further, please know without a doubt that I am waiting for the Obama campaign to create their own version of a Decision Center, and that I am bracing for that webpage to be an equal but opposite spin machine.)
In order to function properly, democracies rely on decisions being arrived at through all of the facts being provided in objective, spin-free ways. Not just the convenient facts but the inconvenient ones as well. Democracy relies on facts not being co-mingled with innuendo, vague generalities, attacking the character of well-intended people whose views differ from our own, and comments that magnify polarization. Decision Centers are supposed to be educational tools not propaganda factories.
The more that a candidate's Decision Center is a propaganda factory rather than an educational tool, the more that candidate is providing us with screaming warning lights that they have significant integrity deficits. This is but one symptom of a dangreously broken American political system, however.
This brokenness has been put extremely well by the famous conservative pundit and talented writer George Will. Building upon the quote by Henry Adams that "politics is the systematic organization of our hatreds, Will went on to say that "political parties help us organize our animosities." I most sincerely thank you, George Will, for so succinctly pointing out the disease that is destroying democracy as we know it.
I listen carefully to speeches for examples of spin because spin reflects lack of integrity and this threatens democracy. One of many things I listen for is irrelevant comments that invite listeners to form a negative or positive attitude about someone. I am dismayed by how rarely people catch these kinds of comments, compared to how often they are made by politicians and pundits from across the political spectrum.
Someone criticized me the other day for pointing out examples of spin in a presidential nominee's speech. It doesn't even matter which nominee it is because what I was pointing out could easily apply to just about any politician. There is a never-ending parade of examples of spin and propaganda that candidates from both political parties, as well as pundits across the political spectrum, express as though there is nothing wrong with doing this.
Spin includes bashing, polarization, propaganda and brainwashing. It includes contaminating facts with innuendo. It includes omitting facts that might cause the listener to forming a conclusion that is different from what the speaker is trying to spin them into believing. Spin is a form of socially accepted lying.
The opposite of spin is synergy, which means knowing that you have a piece of a larger puzzle, knowing that the other person has a piece of a larger puzzle, and therefore discovering the picture and the creative solutions that are co-created when we combine our respective pieces instead of trying to convince those who differ from us that we’re right and they’re wrong. Synergy isn’t compromise. Compromise is a vastly inferior strategy in which all parties meet in some vanilla middle place in which everyone walks away feeling equally ripped off. Rather, synergy is understanding the only way to create truly responsive and viable solutions is to co-discover the picture that emerges when we combine the piece of the larger picture that you see more clearly than me with the piece of the larger picture that I see more clearly than you. Synergy is the only strategy that is capable of generating true solutions to our problems.
Spin and synergy are complete opposites. Spin damages democracy. Synergy builds democracy. Spin sabotages synergy. This is why there is everything wrong with using spin as a communication style when trying to create solutions to complex societal problems. This is why there is everything wrong with citizens and the media tolerating and even encouraging spin.
I am constantly listening for when a leader, candidate or pundit makes a spin-oriented statement because this is an extremely reliable sign of integrity deficits. The more spin someone uses the greater their integrity deficits turn out to be. The more someone panders to what they believe people want to hear the greater their integrity deficits turn out to be. The more someone feeds polarization, the more they omit inconvenient facts and the more they overtly or covertly attack the motives and character of well-intended people who don’t have the same ideology as they do, the greater their integrity deficits turn out to be.
Most people say what this person who criticized me said: "I don't for a second believe that Senator McCain, Senator Obama, or any other politician has complete integrity."
With deep sadness, I agree. And I also strongly believe that voters have a civic duty to become much better at evaluating levels of politician integrity so they can factor this into who they vote for. I further believe that voting for the candidate with the most integrity is a far more important selection criterion today than the extent to which a candidate appears to have the same position on issues as we think they ought to have. Issues are far too complex for the vast majority of citizens to have enough information or expertise about them to truly know how to handle these issues in ways that most serve collective highest good. They therefore have a responsibility to elect whichever politicians they believe have the highest integrity of those available because this is the best way to upgrade the quality of problem-solving in government. One of the reasons I wrote my two-award-winning book, The New IQ, was to help people upgrade their understanding of the various facets of what integrity includes so that they can become better at evaluating leadership and political integrity.
I listen carefully to both presidential nominees to discern when spin is being indulged or synergy is being advocated. My issue is not with McCain individually, or with Obama individually. Neither is it not solely with politicians and politics in general. It is not solely with the media and the pundits either. It is also with everyday citizens who tolerate a culture of spin because they erroneously believe that there is nothing they can do to change this. The problem is system-wide. Plain and simple, my mission is to speak up on behalf of cultural change away from spin and toward synergy.
My critic went on to say, "I believe the spin of the media can have quite an impact on the popular vote, but the popular vote is not what declares one the Democratic Nominee."
This is quite correct. The Democratic party’s nomination structure, which I have significant questions about, is nonetheless a reflection of the form of democracy that the founding fathers created. It is technically called “representative democracy.” The representative democracy model caused the Electoral College to be created in the first place. I sometimes wonder whether the Democratic Party thinks that Americans are too stupid to understand this so they don’t bother to educate the public about this. If so, I don’t agree. I sometimes wonder if the Republican Party hopes that Americans are too stupid to understand this so that they can effectively attack the Democratic Party for using a representative democracy approach to select a nominee. But mostly I am dismayed about how few citizens know what representative democracy is and its central role in the founding fathers’ vision of American democracy that they built into our Constitution.
One of questions I have is whether we have reached a point as a society where the public is sophisticated enough so that it would be prudent for the representative democracy structure created by the founding fathers to be allowed to evolve toward a more pure form of democracy.
In truth, we have a whole slew of legitimate and important issues on our hands that need dialogue and synergy in order to sort out and solve at a root-cause level rather than coming up with surface bandaids that simply cover up and prolong the underlying problems. Spin keeps driving us further and further away from addressing the underlying problems in comprehensive ways that both preserve individual freedom and steward collective highest good. The entire experiment in democratically-based governance that the founding fathers created for the United States is all about doing our level best to create solutions that live at this intersection of individual freedom and collective highest good.
Spin sabotages this foundation of American democracy. The time has come for us to demand an end to spin and that spin be be replaced by not by compromise but by synergy. It is time for citizens to start demanding this from themselves, the media and politicians.
Now would be a very good time for George Will's version of politics to come to an end. Now is the time for an integrity revolution to begin! If not now, when? If not you, who? -
-
Unsu...
Re: Obama Lays Out Plans for Continued War
Tue, July 15, 2008 - 12:58 AMPromethus says, "I make a point of being on the e-mail lists for both the McCain and Obama campaigns."
So? Both are pro-war, pro-Patriot Act, pro-FISA, etc. etc. etc.
That's like saying, we listen to both kinds of music here, country and western.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Unsu...
Re: Obama Lays Out Plans for Continued War
Tue, July 15, 2008 - 1:39 AMPromethus, please stop spamming my article with all of these long and irrelevant cuts and pastes from Wikipedia, etc. If you have a comment on my article, that’s fine, but I ask you to please stop flooding my article's discussion with long and irrelevant posts. Thank you. -
-
Re: Obama Lays Out Plans for Continued War
Thu, July 17, 2008 - 10:05 PMWhy does political discussion have to dissolve into bitter pie so quickly? Is it because it's easier to be rude and post other people's opinions instead of one's own than to actually develop a cogent argument?
I enjoy Steven's posts and find it annoying that his heartfelt thoughts are met with rudeness rather than intelligent political discussion.
I'm new here but I know what I like.
Steven, thanks for holding out long enough to get your point across despite the zombie attack.
Ha!
See what I mean about the bitter pie?
I actually do have an opinion of my own on this matter but at the moment am too tired and cheesed off by the BS to lay it out. I'll post it tomorrow! -
-
Re: Obama Lays Out Plans for Continued War
Thu, July 17, 2008 - 11:38 PMenjoy Steven's posts and find it annoying that his heartfelt thoughts are met with rudeness rather than intelligent political discussion.
---------
i enjoy stevens thoughts 2. They are well head of the bell curve. The problem is, that if you take his advice, all you get is more entropy.
Hes halfway there, and thats better than twice that far backwards like some people. But i'm in it to solve problems, and be adult about it,
not think two dimensionally and be the perfect enemy for the projection of the evil jerks so that they can keep the drama up.
The zombie is steven. And in this case you. Its nice that you've picked up the meme, but i'm invested lots deeper in understanding it than
the size of your perspective.
----------------------
troll crap.
they are many. They are legion.
They have no integrity; They beleive that if a cause is to their side, this authorizes them to FIGHT;
by whatever means are necessary.
They did not understand that "the ends does not justify the means".
They probably never heard that, and don't know its an esoteric reference.
They have no knowledge to speak of. They are uneducated on essentially every subject.
You can find them to be completely out of touch with the most basic laws of Cause and effect,
Completely ignorant of sociology, or Civil Engineering.
Completely and utterly devoid of any even basic understanding of Physics, Or Psychology.
And in this vaccum of their ignorance, they presume to judge.
They presume to tell us what they think is true; That the rest of us are just their
pwns, and that they, the trolls, have determined that we are, the Nerds, are inferior.
They find oh so clever little trollish art in finding ways to use ridicule.
And by their numbers and pack psychology, they manage, inconceivably, to occasionally have some sort
of minor sway on public opinion.
How is this possible? How did our civilization come to such silly self destructive ends that
we evolved a troll niche? How did we breed this large demographic of subhumans,
with IQs between 75 and 105 and a rabid penchant for nihilistic and self defeating social violence?
How did we turn over what should have been the great American Political Dialogue between Great minds,
to a bunch of petty, theiving, inbred, royal bastards, and their army of politico trolls?
Why do we feed them, rather than pave the way for a better future by talking of whats truly important?
Why don't we collectively start discussing the factual problems and potential solutions,
instead of relying on elected big brother to do it for us, while running a politics based on troll warfare?
Troll Crap. It is piled neck deep and strewn about the American Landscape, one big fetid,
gross, rotting pile of insane and evil doublethink, propaganda, Ad hominems, straw man arguments,
and assorted distractions and attempted lame and two dimensional psychological manipulations.
Which for some crazy reason, the sheeple fail to see.
How does the IQ demographic from 105 to 120 get sucked down like that?
To dither as fools inside of the human bellcurves low end?
Don't they realize that it is up to them, as the true majority by statistical and bellcurve
geometries, to listen to and empower and embolden and partake in the conversation that is attempted
between Genius and the "Average" Citizen?
Do they not know that the bellcurve arranges it such that they outnumber the trolls by 3 or 5 to one?
Do they not realize that they are choosing to encourage the worst in humanity, rather than turn their eyes
and the tide of human psychohistory towards some better future?
Can they not hear us, The rare one in one million, trying to talk them out of their love affair with
demihumans?
Let the trolls breed and talk and play and enjoy their lives; Somewhere outside of my arean of informed
public discussion.
Let them make love, have picnics, climbs mountains, walk in riverbeds, climb trees, swim in oceans,
and frolic with their freedom. (Their biggest problem being that they are so angry at everybody else for being
smarter than they are; which makes them more stupid. And this unrealizing that intelligence isn't mostly
Genetic nor aptitude, but the difference between good and bad self metaprogramming. So all they need to do
to get smarter is quit being emotionalized, hyperdefenive, sociopathic, nuckle dragging brutes, and get their
ignorant buns into some kind of adult eduction, preferablty starting with conversational logic and Psychology.)
-----------------
Zombies. They live amongst us. They are not the horrors of some fiction; but a manifested metaphor. An initially subliminal
personification. A poetic license and a handy set of dramatic metaphors. Yet, it turns out that all fiction is
just projection of the collective psyche in self exploration. Any symbol, every demon, every anti god, every villain,
every mythic element of darkness, all of it represents in truth only one thing; Ourselves.
And so the myth of the Zombie exists as merely a common entertainment theme for those who don't understant this
principle. But for those who do understand this principle, the zombies in truth live amongst us.
What is a zombie? A zombie is anyone who has made a vice of doublethink. Anybody who has been programmed to beleive
that verbal social violence is an okay problem solving tool. A zombie is any person who raises their voice in opinion
loudly, ignorant of the facts and at odd with any real sense. A zombies problem definition is to attack. This is all they
know how to do. They do not use diplomacy. They are at odds with tact. They cannot bring themselves to be constructive.
They use ad hominems as their primary prefered form of social interaction; even amongst themselves.
A zombie is a person who lives halfway between "life", or truthfull living in accordance with the bare minimum
obervance of natural laws, and "Death" or the trend of an overpopulation problem to be self correcting by creating
literally species internal predators.
Zombies are thus a warning and an act of nature. A stop sign on the highway of social and civil Evolution.
go no further into propaganda. Quit using your mass media nd your public entertainment to program people stupid.
Kick all advertising off the PUBLIC Airwaves. Kill any TV show that has no moral redeaming value, no educational content,
or which is merely another form of well packaged propaganda. Take back your media; or burn your TVs.
Don't let other people tell you what to think.
This is the good advice one might give a zombie. The problem is that the zombie isn't listening.
They have allready predetermined that anything you say is contentless in their scewed version of reality.
The pause in which you think they are listening while you speak is really just the time they are taking to
think about how to attack you next. Theres no real reasoining with a zombie. Instead, one is forced to use shock
tactics, to try to wake them up. This is generally problematic, because shocking tactics are also more easilly spun.
The difference between a troll and a zombie is in most senses simply a difference of IQ. whereas a troll hates
you because He's stupid, a Zombie might have been at one time almost as smart as you are. But mere intelligence
does not guard against being mentally programmed.
--------------------------
Vampires. They are not the horrors of some fiction; but a manifested metaphor. An initially subliminal
personification. A poetic license and a handy set of dramatic metaphors. Yet, it turns out that all fiction is
just projection of the collective psyche in self exploration. Any symbol, every demon, every anti god, every villain,
every mythic element of darkness, all of it represents in truth only one thing; Ourselves.
And so the myth of the Vampire exists as merely a common entertainment theme for those who don't understant this
principle. But for those who do understand this principle, the Vampires in truth live amongst us.
What is a vampire? A person who knows the truth, and who for purposes of Greed or mere malicious malice,
distorts it. The pundit who intentionally works out how to spin doctor and distort information in order to
conjur up a smear campaign. The assorted Corporations; Be they Oil companies who didn't want us to know that Geothermal
power and solar power could make energy virtually free, and for all practical purposes unlimited, or the New oil
adventures in stupid, evil, counterproductive explorations of Biofuels, or technologcially premature explorations
of nuclear Power.
They are the people who delivered to you a 400 thousand dollar car based on 1940s technology, instead of the hovercar
capable of mach 3 that the current technology could in theory now deliver. Or even as much as the Turbine Engine,
making obsolete the piston over 60 years ago.
The vampires are the people sucking the life out of frankly everything. Out of Scientific progress, out of our
American Institutions, Out of The Declaration of Independence, and the Constitution. They are generally Republicans,
but yet, the Democratic Leadership until recently was also in truth merely another batch of Vampires.
Sucking up our airwaves, sucking up any real dialogue about our real social problems, diabolizing as "Far Leftist"
any solution which actually transcends the left/right false duality, They keep human Civilization in America
stuck, half exploring in echolation an evolutionary process which we actually grew out of millions of years ago.
Alpha pack leader Dogs and their Zombie hoardes; The Vampires are they who see Blacks, Whites, Latinos,
And all Races as mere pawns in their game of divide and conquer. They play us against each other;
and then they get rich, making billions of dollars selling us crap that any decent corporate start up entity
could easilly out compete; were the entire sick game not disgustingly stacked against them.
Nobody would watch 2008 corporate swine generated mass consumption media if they had access to cocreating a democratic
media which would then by virtue of mass intelligence be an order of magnitude smarter and more entertaining.
Nobody would buy a gas guzzling SUV if they made solar power and electric Cars, (Which now are city buses in cities like Santa
Barbara) Or if we got even smarter and illegalized cars inside of cities and put in a mass transit cable car system.
The possibilities for solutions are wide open and endless. We could in theory end all use of oil, and turn our planet
back into the garden of eden in under a single decade. But unless we silence the Vampires, Instead what will
happen is society will self destruct, martial law will be declared, and then FEMA will simply kill the poor and the middle
class, leaving only the Vampires and their tiny herds of caged sheeple.
-
-
