he, thru his managers, talks sweetly but excercises ever greater evil.
only thing that the funni uncle fears is his people, or about 90% of his dear subjects.
one never knows, these serfs may just awaken one day if there wld be peace in hearts of the ruling class.
tnx.

It is plain to see that there is not one iota of difference between Obama and McCain. I think McCain would be following exactly this same path. Much of the Bush policies are fully in tact.

The crime and the man could not be distinguished with Bush. With Obama, the crimes go on, but the disjoint in message, the smooth hypocricy, and the complete and utter collapse of opposition here in the US, makes this the most dangerous of times.

In the end, it may not be the “will” of the people so much as the non-negotiable reality of a collapsed, bankrupt empire, with problems so painful that choices are scaled to transformation in one direction or another. Will the plutocrats still hold power at that point?

But at bottom, Obama soaring rhetoric is an affront to humanity, as it speaks to disarmament on the one hand and bombs the lives out of children and innocents in Afghanistan and Pakistan. The contrasting styles between Obama and Bush, have provided for the continuation of the imperialistic war crimes. Obama is now a criminal; as much so as Bush whose illegalities Obama is covering up, using the executive branch to keep the lid on the crimes of the Bush administration.

Obama owns these wars. And it is now time to make that clear in every way possible. But he’s a slippery one. He’ll give an executive order allowing stem cell research and gov’t funding, on the one hand, and than throw over a trillion dollars into the whores of finance, and hire on the guns of Wall Street and their banksters.

Obama is a dangerous leader because unlike Bush he’s a double dealer.

Morning Star comment

“IT is certainly true that US President Barack Obama’s broad and inclusive public persona is a welcome change from the narrow bigoted fundamentalism of his predecessor George W Bush.

And it is refreshing, albeit faintly incredible, to hear the commander-in-chief of the largest nuclear power in the world say that the US seeks “the peace and security of a world without nuclear weapons” and continue that the US is “ready to lead,” has a “moral responsibility to act” and stands for the right of everybody to live free of fear in the 21st century.

It is only when one stands back from the dizzy power of Mr Obama’s rhetoric and measures it against the cold realities of world politics that the doubts start to crowd in like the qhost of Christmas past steaming in on Ebenezer Scrooge.

For someone so vocally committed to nuclear detente and eventual disarmament, President Obama cuts a strange figure on the world stage, mixing mixing peace talk with a cold-warrior reality which would not disgrace the most right-wing of his predecessors.

On the one hand stands a man who declares that “the world must stand together and prevent the spread of these weapons.”

But on the other stands a president in control of sufficient nuclear firepower to turn large tracts of the world into nuclear wastelands.

The man proclaims “America’s commitment to seek the peace and security of a world without nuclear weapons,” but the president continues to support Israel, whose illegal nuclear weapons clearly classify it as a rogue state among the nations of the world.

He shamelessly continues to use nuclear-armed Israel to counterbalance the regional influence of Iran and, to preserve the integrity of that counterweight, argues and threatens against an Iranian nuclear capacity while blithely disregarding the Israeli nuclear crime.

Mr Obama says that the “most immediate and extreme threat to global security” is terrorists possessing nuclear weapons.

But he continues to disregard the role of his own massive nuclear arsenal in making that possession into a logical aspiration for any organisation, be it nationally or religiously led, that wishes to become a force in world politics.

His condemnation of North Korea’s launch of a rocket on Sunday would have carried considerably more authority if it had come from a president who didn’t have a lackey following him around with the nuclear red button always within reach.

None of this is to say that Mr Obama’s initiative in reopening the issue of nuclear arms reduction should be rejected as phoney. Quite the reverse.

Substantial bilateral reductions in the world’s nuclear arsenal would be an enormous forward move in any event.

The world would be much safer for such reductions and they should be pursued with eagerness.

But the fact remains that US influence to remove the perceived threat of an Iranian nuclear capability should be accompanied by the use of that influence to neutralise the Israeli arsenal.

And any bilateral talks should be predicated on an acknowledgement that war, whether nuclear or conventional, is not the continuation of politics by other means, but an outrage perpetrated on the weak by the strong and an inappropriate response from a man who wishes to be seen as a peacemaker.

And US policy on Afghanistan and Iran must reflect just that. ”

http://www.morningstaronline.co.uk/index.php/news/comment/peace_talk_war_reality

Thousands flee bomb attacks by US drones

Daud Khattakin and Christina Lamb, Times

AMERICAN drone attacks on the border between Afghanistan and Pakistan are causing a massive humanitarian emergency, Pakistani officials claimed after a new attack yesterday killed 13 people. The dead and injured included foreign militants, but women and children were also killed when two missiles hit a house in the village of Data Khel, near the Afghan border, according to local officials…

Link: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article6036512.ece

He is a straw man speaking hollow words.

Well of course, some questions were asked and very detailed and intelligent answers were given:
Q: what are you going to do:
A: I will bring change.

Q: How will you solve the economic crisis?
A: I have a plan.(I heard that one many times in the media. But I was unable to find any details.)

Q: What about Iraq?
A: I will bring troops home.

Q: What about the taliban?
A: we will hunt them down and destroy them/

Q: What if they flee to Pakistan and Pakistan doesn’t coöporate?
A: We bomb Pakistan.

etc.

In my country, these questions would be the beginning of a long talk…

The problem is also: If you don’t like the democrats or the republicans then your f*cked: There is more in life then being for or against. And America calls itself a democracy but it isn’t. Americans could only choose between: Big occupation of Iraq and small occupation of Iraq…
And then I think: Thats fucked. But when I talk to Americans hey think that their democracy works because a woman or a black person can become president. And they don’t care about the content of their message. And thats the most powerfull nation on earth… :-(

ps: I read this and it’s not so well structured, sorry!

Emperor Obama, along with the corporate/military representatives we call the Congress, is interested in supporting and maintaining the American Empire. Nothing more; nothing less.

The words we choose to use say a great deal about our thinking processes. For example, if we replaced “U.S.” with “American Empire” in our language, it would not only be more realistic, it would loosen mental prejudices so that we could all see better. A new pair of eyeglasses will work wonders for our blurred vision.

the post-20th century warfare by US and nato has a purpose, but you may have to wait a century or so for funni uncle to tell you that.
so take a guess or guesses; mull over them for days if you like; embed all the guesses in your brain and, voila, one appears to make most sense: is it world’s goodies or not?

remember, don’t be scared [as priests and politicains are] for using the word “guess” .
priests use the word “to believe” [since it means to them "to know"] and not the words such as: I think, maybe, i guess. tnx

Its time to see Obama for what he really is, a center right pro- globalist corporate democrat.

He even says that those who are dissappointed on his stance on Iraq did not listen to him during the campaign. Unfortunatley he is right.
No one asked any real questions of him. Those who tried were shunned. He allowed himself to be all things to all people and the public fell for it.

Not onlythe left needs to be honest about Obama. The Black community needs to wake up about him as well. Barry is a front man for Wall St.; and does not represent the interest of any part of the Black community. I am already calling his plans for Afganistan and Pakistan Obama’s Folly. Get the articles of impeachment ready.

Eric