Paraphrasing the Victory Oration

Obama’s Initial Message to the World

by Gary Leupp / November 5th, 2008

From Obama’s victory oration in Chicago last night:

“And to all those watching tonight from beyond our shores, from parliaments and palaces, to those who are huddled around radios in the forgotten corners of the world, our stories are singular, but our destiny is shared, and a new dawn of American leadership is at hand.”

In other words: Don’t worry, world. The bad old days of George Bush are over.

“To those — to those who would tear the world down: We will defeat you.”

In other words: Under my administration we Americans will continue to simplistically conceptualize the existence of an enemy that is pure evil and wants to destroy the world, and imagine we can “defeat” it through the War on Terror.

“To those who seek peace and security: We support you.”

In other words: You Georgians facing Russia. You Afghans facing Pakistan-based attacks. You Israelis facing what you imagine to be the threat of a nuclear-armed Iran. You can trust an Obama administration to behave just like other recent U.S. administrations have behaved: with threats and sanctions, illegal cross-border raids and more war. Have no fear. As the world’s greatest imperialist country, with bases in over half the countries on the planet, we can seek peace and security and support whoever we want. Yes we can!

“And to all those who have wondered if America’s beacon still burns as bright: Tonight we proved once more that the true strength of our nation comes not from the might of our arms or the scale of our wealth, but from the enduring power of our ideals: democracy, liberty, opportunity and unyielding hope.”

In other words: For those of you who, after the U.S. invasion of Iraq based on lies, and the bombing of civilians in Afghanistan and Iraq, and the torture of prisoners in Abu Ghraib and secret prisons around the world wonder if America’s beacon still burns bright, my election shows our greatness doesn’t come from our military and money but from…my ability to get enough money to get elected during an unpopular war!

Gary Leupp is a Professor of History at Tufts University, and author of numerous works on Japanese history. He can be reached at: gleupp@granite.tufts.edu. Read other articles by Gary.

This article was posted on Wednesday, November 5th, 2008 at 1:29pm and is filed under "Third" Party, Democrats, Empire.

22 comments on this article so far ...

Comments RSS feed

  1. Mel said on November 5th, 2008 at 2:03pm #

    I’m always amazed at how people can read between the lines and pull out the ‘true’ meaning of what was said.

    Is there any way, that Obama was sincere and the words meant what they meant?

    Or put another way, is it possible to speak without someone reading between the lines. If he was sincere, what was he ‘supposed’ to say.

    Was the recent president elect suppose to say, “Hey, we Americans conducted an illegal war, kill civilians whenever we feel like it, and love to torture prisoners, and Oh, by the way, now that i’m president I won’t do that and sorry for the trouble?”

    Seriously, what was he supposed to say. What would you have said?

    Mel…

  2. bozhidar bob balkas said on November 5th, 2008 at 3:17pm #

    i agree, gary, leupp
    ‘lesser evil’ may turn to become yet a greater evil.

  3. Michael Kenny said on November 5th, 2008 at 3:19pm #

    I would make exactly the opposite interpretation of the first quote. He’s saying that the bad old days are going to continue! “American leadership” means American hegemony and the attempt to maintain American hegemony was the rock on which the neocons perished. It was precisely because he said much the same thing in Berlin that Europe downgraded him from messiah status to mere lesser evil status. Obama will have a honeymoon period but if this is more than just rhetoric …

  4. Max Shields said on November 5th, 2008 at 3:20pm #

    I think Gary, your deciphering Obama’s speeches could keep you posting here for a number of years – at least for. Nice job!

  5. JN said on November 5th, 2008 at 4:44pm #

    In short, Obama will “change” NOTHING. The only question is will his supporters go back to sleep until the next worthless ‘messiah’ turns up, or will they realise that change only happens when it is made to happen by the people? How much change do ‘Democrat’ voters really want?

  6. Bill Lawrence said on November 5th, 2008 at 5:31pm #

    Gary, You have hit it right on the head. When he spoke to AIPAC there was no mention of the Palestinian suffering and when he spoke of incursions into Pakistan there was no concern over the consequences. Not to mention the leftward movement taking place in Central and South America. People seem to forget while wrapped up in this euphoria that the democrats are as warlike as the republicans. Rather than party over his election with our fingers crossed hoping for peace, we need to hit the streets in huge numbers to demand an end to war for profit.

  7. bozhidar bob balkas said on November 5th, 2008 at 5:37pm #

    according to my teachers (no, not school teachers) the meanings r not in words but in people.
    that’s why i never try to decypher what a speaker means. and when the speaker is a priest or politico, devil may stretch out my tongue or singe my brain if wld waste time on what obama says/means. thnx

  8. Deadbeat said on November 5th, 2008 at 5:49pm #

    I’m not the only one making these points. Here’s From CounterPunch…

    This election advertised not only McCain’s stupidity but also the absence of an effective third force in American politics, at a moment when the credibility of both parties and of both major candidates is open to sweeping challenge. Voters were disgusted with the entire system and the direction the country has taken. Disapproval of Bush and of the Democrats running Congress has been at the same high level. Obama and McCain share many positions, starting with the bailout and continuing with endorsement of a belligerent foreign policy from Georgia to Iran, total fealty to Israel and a ramp-up of the doomed Afghan campaign. With this in mind, it is instructive to look back at the Perot campaign of 1992.

    After scoring very high polling numbers in June of 1992, showing him to be in the lead over Clinton and Bush, Perot announced his withdrawal from the race, later disclosing that he didn’t want his candidacy to prompt release, by Republican operatives, of compromising photos of his daughter before her wedding. Perot didn’t re-enter the race until October 1. He talked his way into the debates and riveted the nation with his famous denunciations of free trade and laments for America’s industrial decline, which he blamed on both the major parties. Five weeks later, he won 19 per cent of the vote, thereby costing George H.W. Bush the election.

    A similar scenario could have unfolded in this election, with the most likely standard bearer of a third force being Ron Paul, the libertarian congressman from Texas. Paul had plenty of money and a national organization. He would have able to launch effective attacks on both candidates, on the issue of war and the bailout. At his well-attended shadow convention in St Paul, he could have declared as an independent. He declined.

    Ralph Nader is a man for whom the economic crisis has come as total vindication of everything he has been proclaiming for decades about the corruption of Wall Street, the ties between Wall Street and Congress, the economic sellouts of Clinton time, from free trade deals to the repeal of Glass-Steagall. Yet, Nader had no party and hence suffered from hugely diminished political purchase on everything, from volunteers to finance to media presence, at a moment when his message could have resonated hugely with the furious and fearful electorate. The political groups and coalitions that rallied to Nader in 2000 were all shadows of their former selves. Eight years of Bush have pushed the environmental and labor lobbies back into the Democratic Party, where their voices are inaudible and political influence scarcely visible to the naked eye. Obama pounds the drum for nuclear power and hugely toxic coal-to-gas conversion plants and campaigns through the industrial wastelands of the Midwest, while remaining more or less mute on “free” trade.

  9. Mel said on November 5th, 2008 at 6:24pm #

    I disagree with the statement, “The meaning is not in words but in people”.

    I would say, “The meaning is not in words, but in action.”

    Obama talks a good game, but ultimately, we will have to judge him by his actions. That will be the true test.

    Incidentally, he has already acted in some regards, the way he ran his campaign was historic. I believe most people do not understand that magnitude of his campaign accomplishment. A relatively unknown senator with very little experience going against the Juggernaught Hillary Clinton who was practicing her acceptance speech 3 years ago. Also in the mix, John Edwards, and the flirt of the name Al Gore. The fact that he won an uphill battle and redefined how you campaign (using the internet, accepting small donations, going overseas, etc) he really did rewrite the book on campaigning. So how will that energy, drive, and inventiveness serve him in the oval office?

    Time will be the ultimate judge.

    Mel…

  10. shabnam said on November 5th, 2008 at 10:57pm #

    professor Leupp :
    I agree with your interpretation when you write:
    “Under my administration we Americans will continue to simplistically conceptualize the existence of an enemy that is pure evil and wants to destroy the world, and imagine we can “defeat” it through the War on Terror.”
    Obama does not want to expose the phony nature of “the War on Terror.” He wants to continue bombing of Afghani people in their houses, wedding parties, schools and other places to preserve
    “American leadership” in the world. He does not realize that this kind of policy has thrown “American credibility” into garbage bin long time ago. He does not want to bring soldiers home from Iraq since he has said: “End the war responsibly.” What does it mean?
    He listens to Zionists who are seeking partition of Iraq and creation of tribe of “Kurdistan” where everyone call it ‘another Israel’ and is against that except, of course, Israel. Kurds have been found guilty in killing Iraqi Christians in north of Iraq to expand their territory so Israelis can buy more lands in North of Iraq to establish their ‘greater Israel.” No one is talking about destructive role of Kurds who are seeking PERMANENT OCCUPATION of foreign forces in Iraq.
    Obama’s presidency is not about “change”, since he has no shift in foreign policy dealing with Israel. Obama has been elected due to deterioration of human condition all over the world including the United States. Majority of American people are FED UP with the status que and have casted their votes to show their DISCONTENT. Obama benefited from this unique moment in history where majority of Americans, like the rest of the world, feel they are VICTOMS of the International financial system and have become a pray to those brutal, arrogant and corrupt ‘leaders’ who have stolen the “leadership” of a broken ship headed towards DARKNESS. Obama’s black skin presented him as a “victim” and “one of us” who they can identify with and ‘trust’ him, thus, they offered him the ‘presidency’ to take them out of this mess. Yes, we can. Obama assured them. Everyone screamed “Yes, we can” to send a message that they are willing to bargain with this black man who seem to be “different” from the other major candidate.
    People must know that Obama like the other candidate has promised to follow Zionist policy not only by offering “Undivided Jerusalem” to the apartheid state of Israel, removing the biggest” threat” against Israel, Iran with a nuclear program, but also he listens and repeats the nonsense of neocons such as Dennis Ross, Anthony Lake, and Susan Rice to form his foreign policy beneficial to “the greater Israel” which is neither in the interest of American people nor in the interest of the world. This policy is going to expand the war and waste more human capital as well as American resources where are badly needed at home.
    Majority of those who voted for Obama are fed up with the WAR, a Zionist war. But majority of these victims do not see the war started, at least, six years earlier during Clinton administration, a Zionist administration, based on dual containment designed by Martin Indyke who came from the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, established in 1985 with the backing of (AIPAC) and with $100,000 in contributions, largely from the Jewish community. Another cofounder of the Washington Institute was Dennis Ross. He played a major role in developing the Middle East policy of both the Clinton Administration and, prior to that, the Administration of George H. W Bush.
    On July 18, 2008, The New York Times published an article entitled “A Cast of 300 Advises Obama on Foreign Policy.” the article mentioned two former secretaries of state, Madeleine Albright and Warren Christopher, The article further stated that Anthony Lake has helped in forming Obama’s comments on Iran’s nuclear program and “its potential threat to Israel.
    The most important advisor to Obama who frame Obama’s comments on Iran’s nuclear program and its “potential threat to Israel”—is Dennis Ross, the former Director of The Washington Institute for Near East Policy, pro Israeli think tank. He is critical in implementation of policies which helps Israel to establish her hegemony in the Middle East by weakening other regional states through war and partition and “regime change.” He believes that the US must join France, Britain and Germany in negotiating with Iran, but with a price: If Iran does not accept capitulation, that is, to stop its enrichment of uranium then Europeans must impose severe economic sanctions against Iran. He has expressed this view a number of times and in different places. He is using American power to deny Iran of her right to enrich uranium for its fuel since Iran is signatory to NPT but Israel IS NOT and sitting on more than 400 nuclear bombs ready to go. Dennis Ross is so arrogant that writes:
    “Indeed, concerted international action may be the key to preventing Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapons capability……[W]hile there is no guarantee that Iran will either maintain that suspension or expand it to include a halt to enrichment or missile delivery programs, further international pressure could bear fruit.”
    He does not question Israel illegal nuclear weapon program but he manufactures ‘crisis’ by lies and deception to fool American and the world.
    Even German people are fed up with Zionist lobby where spread lies around. The leftist daily Junge Welt accused the German Zionist lobby of being involved in a “psychological warfare against Iran” by launching the so-called ‘Stop The Bomb’ campaign which is mainly aimed at discrediting Tehran’s peaceful civilian nuclear program. Political observers in Berlin stress that the German Zionist lobby had made similar baseless accusations about alleged Iraqi weapons of mass destruction leading up to the US invasion in spring 2003.

    http://www.payvand.com/news/08/nov/1033.html

    So far, Obama is following pro zionist policy which might ends with nuclear holocaust if American people do not protest. People have given Obama many opportunities to be elected to help them to shift American public and foreign policy to bring peace and end the war. Obama’s pro Zionist policy should not go unchallenged because it will have great consequences for Americans and the world.
    http://www.antiwar.com/orig/flynn.php?articleid=13710

  11. Martha said on November 6th, 2008 at 6:05am #

    Thank you for deciphering the speech, Mr. Leupp. Bookmarking this on the computer because it will only ring more true in six months. Well done.

  12. Phil said on November 6th, 2008 at 6:26am #

    Is there any way, that Obama was sincere and the words meant what they meant?
    Doubtful. When everything he’s said and done thus far has been to support aggressors and terrorists, why should we believe that he’s suddenly sincere about siding with those who seek peace and security?
    “Was the recent president elect suppose to say, “Hey, we Americans conducted an illegal war, kill civilians whenever we feel like it, and love to torture prisoners, and Oh, by the way, now that i’m president I won’t do that and sorry for the trouble?”
    Seriously, what was he supposed to say. What would you have said?
    Actually, that would have been a great thing for the prez-elect to say – maybe not in such blunt terms, but an acknowledgement of US barbarism and a pledge not to continue it would have been the only thing that could seriously start restoring the world’s confidence. As it is, Barack (just as expected) only promises more of the same.

  13. shabnam said on November 6th, 2008 at 6:38am #

    would you please post my comment.

  14. Max Shields said on November 6th, 2008 at 6:39am #

    Deadbeat, we can conjecture about the cause and effect regarding Nader’s voice not amplified and the lack of a coalition.

    But again, I ask you to not simply look at Nader who has been thoroughly demonized by the Dems and faulted with the worst crime you can even imagine – getting GWB elected in 2000.

    This lie has so infiltrated the ranks of the Dem aligned progressives that that spout it at every chance they can, whenever Nader’s name is mentioned.

    You talk about “failure” of the left to be a force in American politics. I agree with that assertion if by “left” you mean those who hug the cuff of the Dem Party. There are millions who look to the Dem Party. The media reinforce this with talk of how the Dems are the left and Pelosi is the ultra left of the Party (!!!!). They even call Obama the most liberal because he relentlessly (like a school boy) voted with the Dem leadership (now there’s a progressive definition if ever there was one(?)).

    The Orwellian machine is at fevor pitch telling you day is night and night day until there is a mighty mindless chorus singing harmonically.

    But to blame attempts to break down the wall by offering a truly grass roots organization and do more than scratch some votes FOR real change is like kicking the “dog”. Nader kept it going for most of this year, got on 45 ballots; and spoke a relentless truth on every venue he could find.

    Why put this on one man for not changing America. If you’ve ever gone up against power, I mean massive force – it’s like a line backer hitting you in mid-throw, the feeling is so swift, powerful it almost feels good because it’s so totally overwhelming. That’s the kind of power the duopoly with its corporate non-stop media has.

    Obama got money from every echelon of the might capitalist system, from the right and liberal. He blanketed the ideologies with a Yes We Can!

    If you’ve never run against a machine, even at a local level, then you don’t know. You are non-existent in those situations – a curiosity item at best. And if you’re a threat, they know how to deal with you.

    To be naive about this power and what stands behind it over history is embarrasing, DB.

    That said, the fight goes on. Yes, strategies and tactics need to change. Some of it will be organic and much will need to be intentional. Some will happen because the collapse will demand an answer – will it be progressive? or will it be fascism?

    At the end, the system cannot be what it is not. I don’t buy that it is mallable in terms of actually being positively responsive. It, the system, knows how to secure itself when under duress. It has all the levers of power at its disposal. It can bob and weave. It can commerialize and parade a right/left faux dichotomy, or play whatever word game works for the day. It can be a hip-hop, bebop, 30 second spot, it can be on the front page of your paper, or on Yahoo’s or Google’s or in your inbox. It’s litter ubiquitous.

    Nader is an enemy of the people [re: state] and will be until he can be caractured on SNL or Jay Leno or David Letterman. Once you are a certifiable joke you can be tapped on the head and sent away.

  15. shabnam said on November 6th, 2008 at 7:06am #

    professor Leupp :
    I agree with your interpretation when you write:
    “Under my administration we Americans will continue to simplistically conceptualize the existence of an enemy that is pure evil and wants to destroy the world, and imagine we can “defeat” it through the War on Terror.” Obama does not want to expose the phony nature of “the War on Terror.” He wants to continue bombing of Afghani people in their houses, wedding parties, schools and other places to preserve
    “American leadership” in the world. He does not realize that this kind of policy has thrown “American credibility” into garbage bin long time ago. He does not want to bring soldiers home from Iraq since he has said: “End the war responsibly.” What does it mean?
    He listens to Zionists who are seeking partition of Iraq and creation of tribe of “Kurdistan” where everyone call it ‘another Israel’ and is against it except, of course, Israel. Kurds have been found guilty in killing Iraqi Christians in north of Iraq to expand their territory so Israelis can buy more lands in North of Iraq to establish their ‘the Greater Israel.” No one is talking about destructive role of Kurds who are seeking PERMANENT OCCUPATION by foreign forces in Iraq.
    Obama’s presidency is not about “change”, since he has no shift in foreign policy dealing with Israel. Obama has been elected due to deterioration of human condition all over the world including the United States. Majority of American people are FED UP with the status quo and have casted their votes to show their DISCONTENT. Obama benefited from this unique moment in history where majority of Americans, like rest of the world, feel they are VICTOMS of the International financial system and have become a pray to brutal, arrogant and corrupt ‘leaders’ who have stolen the “leadership” of a broken ship headed towards DARKNESS. Obama’s black skin presented him as a “victim” and “one of us” who they can identify with and ‘trust’ him, thus, they offered him the ‘presidency’ to take them out of this mess. Yes, we can. Obama assured them. Everyone shouted “Yes, we can” to send a message that they are willing to bargain with this black man who seem to be “different” from the other major candidate.
    People must know that Obama like the other candidate has promised to follow the Zionist policy not only by offering “Undivided Jerusalem” to the apartheid state of Israel, removing the biggest” threat” against Israel, Iran with a nuclear program, but also he listens and repeats nonsense of the neocons such as Dennis Ross, Anthony Lake, and Susan Rice to form his foreign policy beneficial to “the Greater Israel” which is neither in the interest of American people nor in the interest of the world. This policy is going to expand the war and waste more human capital as well as American resources where are badly needed at home.
    Majority of those who voted for Obama are fed up with the WAR, a Zionist war. But majority of these victims do not see the war started, at least, six years earlier during Clinton administration, a Zionist administration, equipped with dual containment designed by Martin Indyke who came from the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, established in 1985 with the backing of (AIPAC) and with $100,000 in contributions, largely from the Jewish community. Another cofounder of the Washington Institute was Dennis Ross. He played a major role in developing the Middle East policy of both the Clinton Administration and, prior to that, the Administration of George H. W Bush.
    On July 18, 2008, The New York Times published an article entitled “A Cast of 300 Advises Obama on Foreign Policy.” the article mentioned two former secretaries of state, Madeleine Albright and Warren Christopher, The article further stated that Anthony Lake has helped in forming Obama’s comments on Iran’s nuclear program and “its potential threat to Israel the most important advisor to Obama who frame Obama’s comments on Iran’s nuclear program and its “potential threat to Israel”—is Dennis Ross, the former Director of The Washington Institute for Near East Policy, pro Israeli think tank. He is critical in implementation of policies which helps Israel to establish her hegemony in the Middle East by weakening other regional states through war and partition and “regime change.” He believes that the US must join France, Britain and Germany in negotiating with Iran, but with a price: If Iran does not accept capitulation, that is, to stop its enrichment of uranium then Europeans must impose severe economic sanctions against Iran. He has expressed this view number of times and in different places. He is using American power to deny Iran of her right to enrich uranium for its fuel since Iran is signatory to NPT but Israel IS NOT and sitting illegally on more than 400 nuclear bombs ready to go. Dennis Ross is so arrogant that writes:
    “Indeed, concerted international action may be the key to preventing Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapons capability……[W]hile there is no guarantee that Iran will either maintain that suspension or expand it to include a halt to enrichment or missile delivery programs, further international pressure could bear fruit.”
    He does not question illegal Israel’s nuclear weapon program but he creates lies and deception to fool Americans and the world.

    Even German people are fed up with Zionist lobby where spread lies around. The leftist daily Junge Welt accused the German Zionist lobby of being involved in a “psychological warfare against Iran” by launching the so-called ‘Stop The Bomb’ campaign which is mainly aimed at discrediting Tehran’s peaceful civilian nuclear program. Political observers in Berlin stress that the German Zionist lobby had made similar baseless accusations about alleged Iraqi weapons of mass destruction leading up to the US invasion in spring 2003.

    So far, Obama is following pro zionist policy which might ends with nuclear holocaust of Iran if American people do not protest. People have given Obama many opportunities to be elected to help them to shift American public and foreign policy to bring peace and end the war. Obama’s pro Zionist policy should not go unchallenged because it will have great consequences for Americans and the world.

  16. bozhidar bob balkas said on November 6th, 2008 at 8:22am #

    mel, u’r right. one judges another by one’s actions. i wld just like to, speaking for self, replace the word “judge” w. the word “adjust” one’s thinking according to what was done.
    to act or to do anything, one, perforce, must think/feel/mean to do it.
    hunch(es), ideas, plans precede actions, i affirm.
    eg, Iraq:
    first of all, US ruling class ‘evaluated’ that saddam was acquiring WMD.
    then came more thinkings/meanings.
    among many others, how to use the oldest profession of lying/deceiving/cheating to persuade most amers that it was telling the truth.
    months/yrs later, realizing it succeded in obtaining ok from most amers to procede w. attack, attack occurred. thnx

  17. bozhidar bob balkas said on November 6th, 2008 at 3:19pm #

    shabnam,
    i grant the right to cesede to almost all folks who seek independence. how badly does a folk or its leaders behave shld not be a factor in denial of that right.
    all evil empires have used that ruse to deny independence to many folks.
    i believe that Iraq shld be split asunder. but not by UK/US/isr. and not by installment of puppets in any of the newly created nations.
    only UN shld be involved if all three ethnic groups want that.
    however, we can be sure that US will never allow UN to participate in some kind of final sol’n.
    US, i believe, will split the evil empire; install in each a puppet govt and go on to attack syria, ‘stans, or even iran. thnx

  18. Shabnam said on November 6th, 2008 at 4:51pm #

    bozhidar:
    I don’t know how much you know about Kurds? The Kurds like other groups have been living side by side with other ethnic groups for century. The imperialist and now Zionist have been active among ethnic groups of the middle east and Africa and Central Asia to break up strong states while themselves have been involved in empire building by manufacturing ‘minorities’ and ‘crisis’ through economic sanction, campaign of lies and deceptions to put one group against the other and partition that country into mini states and put a puppet in place to protect their interest. Majorities of countries in the Persian Gulf have been created through ‘divide and rule’ by the western power after WWI and few after WWII. We have not seen peace for a long time now. Middles East with natural resources has been targeted for the last two centuries for partition. The United Nation in fact is the United States. Creation of Israel was not supported by any state in the Middle East region but the UN created the Western power project, Israel, with support of the Soviet Union, where first was against the project and then agreed with it, was created against wishes of ALL STATES including Greece.
    Secessionist movement in the Middle East is very much due to ‘divide and rule’ game of the western power s where they send money and arm to few opportunists to help them to expand their influence and power and get control of their resources and market. Examples are numerous. One is North of Iraq. The latest is Kosovo, but also Southern Sudan where the US supported John Grang who received money and arm through ‘humanitarian aids’ by Clinton Administration and military training by Mossad and CIA to split Sudan. So far they have been able to bring autonomy to southern Sudan against the Sudanese will and now are working in Darfur with pretext of ‘genocide’ which is a LIE. In this process, many people will loose their lives for benefit of Western powers and their enablers in the position of ‘leader of the movement.’ Why people want to separate from other groups who have collected memory and experience with for centuries? While European countries are joining with each other to form a powerful Union against the hegemony of the United States, they try to break the Middle East and African countries into smaller states to keep them divided and weak. Majority of the group’s dissatisfaction is poverty and lack of opportunities. Economic sanction is a powerful tool of the west to manufacture ‘crises among different groups in these countries to break up. How many times did Blacks want to separate in the US? Do you think they should have been given the right to do so? Why did they crash them? What Kosovo with 2 million people can do? I bet you
    if another power plays the same game in the US or other European countries, I assure you these societies will break up in no time.

  19. bozhidar bob balkas said on November 6th, 2008 at 5:13pm #

    shabnam, yes,
    UK, eg, had fragmented arab world into emirates, kingdoms, sultanates in order to disunite and weaken them.
    kuwait, eg, was a mere province in mesopotamia. but UK had separated it from it.
    now it has more coastline than the entire iraq. probably no land wld have stood for a small part being torn away from it, and unilaterally the segment proclaimed a country, obtaining much more coastline than the mother country.
    eg, balkanization was condemned but fragmentation was OK? thnx

  20. A said on November 7th, 2008 at 4:52am #

    Bozhidar,
    Ignore Shabnam, she is a paid agent of the Islamic Republic. She, if it in fact is a she, is spreading propaganda and misinformation.

    Shabnam,
    Initially, I thought you were one of those Islamic Marxists. But the more I read your post the more I realized that you were an agent. We have fought you for far too long not to recognize you. Pass on a message to your bosses. It’s true that the Iranian opposition groups are impotent and useless. But you have a much tougher opposition. The People. And wherever you go, there will be at least one of us who will stand up to you and your masters.

    Here are a few facts for Bozhidar:
    -Kurds have not killed Christians, not for decades. Right now the Shiites are killing Christians, Kurds are giving them refuge.
    -Kurds are the descendants of the ancient Medes who predate the Arabs in that region by Oh a thousand years or so.
    -Their territory has always been in the same area. This teritory has been split between three countries of Iran, Iraq and Turkey.
    -Each country has slaughter them, systematically killed their leaders and intellectuals. Whether by the hand of the Turkish “Grey Wolves” or “Chemical Ali” or the Iranian “Revolutionary Guards”.
    -Kurds are not easily subjugated. They are basicly impossible to control. They are fierce fighters. And as far back as I can remember, they have had a very strong (strong and militant) Left.
    It would be nice for them to have a country of their own, to govern themselves and not worry about who is going to come and kill them and their families tomorrow.

  21. bozhidar bob balkas said on November 7th, 2008 at 8:14am #

    A, thnx,
    broadly, i am for independence for all or almost all folks which seek it.

  22. brian said on January 10th, 2009 at 9:54pm #

    yes i as a person think as a human being & as a person that the American people need to be brought home from Iraq reguardless.