Translation
A Bomber Obama threatens Pakistan.
BARACK OBAMA is supposedly the Great Hope, the liberal Presidential candidate who will deliver America (that the World used to love) from the clutches of the Racist Religious Right Republican (R4) Bush-ites who in 7 years have violently trashed much of the world from Somalia to Afghanistan (from the borders of Kenya in the West to Pakistan in the East), trashed America’s treasury and trashed America’s reputation.
However as the campaigning goes on Obama is looking more and more like the president he hopes to replace. Indeed this week President George W. Bush had to step in and implicitly rebuke Barack Obama for – of all things – irresponsible, “unsavoury” and wanton war-mongering threats to unilaterally attack America’s key ally Pakistan.
George W. Bush has described the Democrat presidential candidate Barack Obama's call for unilateral attack on Pakistan as "unsavoury" and politically motivated. This indeed is the pot calling the kettle black!
This is how The Star (Malaysia)reported war-monger George Bush rebuking prospective war criminal Barack Obama.
"A Pakistani foreign ministry statement said: "President Bush stated that the United States fully respected Pakistan's sovereignty and appreciated Pakistan's resolve in fighting al Qaeda and other terrorist elements. "He (Bush) said that such statements were unsavoury and often prompted by political considerations in an environment of electioneering," the statement added, without making direct reference to Obama. "He agreed that such statements did not serve the interests of either country." Obama said on Wednesday if elected in November 2008 he would be willing to attack inside Pakistan with or without approval from the Pakistani government."
Embarrassingly enough it is very difficult for decent people to disagree with George W. Bush on this matter. Unilateral attacks on foreign countries is what the Nazis and Japanese did in World War 2, is a war crime and IS "unsavoury" to say the least.
Of course the death toll from Bush doing exactly that – attacking foreign countries - is horrendous: post-invasion excess deaths (avoidable deaths, deaths that did not have to happen) in the Occupied Iraqi and Afghan Territories now (as of March 2007) total 1.0 million and 2.4 million, respectively (for details and documentation see "The Cost of War" on MWC News). 
Obama went to Columbia University and Harvard Law School but his "strike Pakistan" call betrays a woeful
Ignorance of history and Law at best - and at worst, a racist disregard of International Law, the UN Charter and International Humanitarian Conventions.
Obama's Kenyan father - like Pakistan - was part of the infamous, racist, genocidal and evil British Empire that spread death and destruction over the whole world. The excess deaths in the British Empire in British India (of which Pakistan was a part) totalled 1.5 billion over 2 centuries (see MWC News ). Barack Obama should know better but obviously doesn’t.
One must seriously question the fitness of Barack Obama to be President of the United States, a nation that that ostensibly believes that “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.”
This is the KENYA history that Great Britain and no doubt Barack Obama won't talk about. In 1884 a Berlin Conference of racist, colonialist, imperialist European Powers “gave” what are now Tanzania, Burundi and Rwanda to Germany and “gave” Kenya (together with Uganda and Zanzibar) to Great Britain (surely “Great” for exceeding just about everyone in history for conquest, mass murder and genocide). In the 20th century the British confiscated huge tracts of suitable land in conquered Kenya and proceeded merrily with European settlement, coffee plantations, and importation of Indian labour. There was of course mounting Indigenous activism over the FORCIBLE THEFT of Indigenous land (just as in the British-sponsored Racist Zionist colonization of Palestine in the same period). In 1944, Jomo Kenyatta started the Independence movement. However Kenyan aspirations for Independence were brutally crushed by the racist British in 1952-1960 in what they called the "Mau Mau Emergency", the Kikuyu-headed Mau Mau insurgency against the British.
In the period 1952-1960, in the first decade of the Glorious Rule of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II and of the New Elizabethan Age for “Great” Britain, 0.3 million Kenyan Kikuyu people were held in concentration camps, 1 million were held in “enclosed villages”, 0.1 million were either killed or otherwise died in custody and there were horrendous British atrocities. Indigenous Independence Leader Jomo Kenyatta was imprisoned. The 1952-1960 excess mortality (avoidable deaths, deaths that did not have to happen) in British-occupied Kenya totaled 1.1 million as determined from United Nations Population Division demographic data (see: "Body Count. Global avoidable mortality since 1950” (G.M. Polya, Melbourne, 2007) and Caroline Elkins (2005), “Britain’s Gulag, The Brutal End of Empire in Kenya” (Pimlico, London)).
Of course, Amerika being Amerika it gets worse.
In addition to declaring that he would unilaterally attack America’s close ally Pakistan, Barack Obama has not ruled out the use of nuclear weapons. It has been reported by the New York Times (August 3, 2007 ) that Obama will not rule out use of the nuclear option. Thus the New York Times reports Obama responding thus to a question about the use of Nuclear Weapons in Afghanistan or Pakistan.
““I think it would be a profound mistake for us to use nuclear weapons in any circumstance,” he said, pausing before he added, “involving civilians.””
Barack Obama’s parents unwittingly named him exceptionally badly - although his name is appropriate for decent folk if uttered as a question: “Barack Obama?” Noting that pronunciation of “A Bomber” in North America approximates to “Obama”, who would barrack for a bomber, barrack for Obama?
Unfortunately, most Americans have been brainwashed by their lying, racist Mainstream media into believing that it is their inalienable right and duty to bomb anyone and any thing they don’t like anywhere in the world – they mostly would Barrack for a Bomber.
|
|
Dr Gideon Polya, MWC News Chief political editor, published some 130 works in a 4 decade scientific career, most recently a huge pharmacological reference text "Biochemical Targets of Plant Bioactive Compounds" (CRC Press/Taylor & Francis, New York & London, 2003), and is currently writing a book on global mortality --- Did you enjoy this article? Please bookmark it onto:
Quote this article on your site | Views: 4288Comments (17) |  |
1. 05-08-2007 00:41
I Have a ..... Nightmare
I Have a …Nightmare.
How is it that so many of my dreams for minority representation and my hopes for a truly fulfilling woman candidate for president have turned so horrifically to the dark side? Perhaps the only silver lining in the upcoming presidential election is that, if the Democrats nominate either leading hypocrite: Hillary or Barack, it will finally destroy the Democratic Party once and for all and end the fraud of the two party system in this country. I guess the Republicans are not the only ones to slip the cyanide in with the frosting in their parading of women and minorities in highly visible positions of responsibility.
I was quite disturbed to read the NYT interview where Barack appeared to backpedal away from his reluctant admission that he would probably not use nukes preemptively. This issue makes me fairly mad (that is insane) with anger at the officials of both parties and the American people in their lack of understanding of the implications of another release of the power of the atom as an act of war. Monday will be the 62nd anniversary of the destruction of Hiroshima (Aug 6, 1945). I probably do not have to inform the MWC News readers that historians are pretty much of the opinion that this use of atomic weapons was a colossal mistake. Human history, if there will continue to be such a thing much longer, will condemn the United States of America as having committed one of the greatest atrocities against humanity.
I have for the past year been trying in vain to get our Representatives and Senators in Washington to condemn any preemptive use of nuclear weapons by this country against Iran. I am deathly afraid that Bush and Co. are seriously contemplating just such an action. This will make this country an even greater universally condemned pariah in the eyes of the world than it already is. Long after we as a society have been buried beneath the rubble of our garbage, generations yet unborn will curse our existence. Yet, from these noble gentlemen and gentlewomen who presume to represent us, barely a peep is heard. Do they have no memory of history and not a shred of humanity that will move them to condemn such an action and take no stand to prevent a second such blunder on the world stage?
I cannot bear such a thought, and after hearing the two front runners in the Democratic Presidential race pussy foot around the issue I cannot bear either of them as well. This will probably get me put in some rendition program for saying so. But if Bush actually does bomb Iran on whatever trumped up charges he chooses, I plan on doing something dramatic that may actually get a local headline or two. don’t worry, it will be largely symbolic and non violent. And to give the Feds another charge to levy against me, I urge all patriotic Americans to do the same. Note to my enemies: Here is your chance to turn me in and score big points with our Department of Fatherland Security. Our second barbaric use of nuclear weaponry in anger cannot be tolerated by any sane person anywhere in the world. Those who do not do everything humanly possible to restore sanity to the body politic will be judged complicit in this crime.
Bob Boldt
PS
America’s treasury and America’s reputation are not all that has been trashed. The bridge collapse last week pointed out just how dramatically our infrastructure has been trashed as well. I really cannot understand how the popular rumor started that this government gives a crap for this country, its security or its people.
How is it that so many of my dreams for minority representation and my hopes for a truly fulfilling woman candidate for president have turned so horrifically to the dark side? Perhaps the only silver lining in the upcoming presidential election is that, if the Democrats nominate either leading hypocrite: Hillary or Barack, it will finally destroy the Democratic Party once and for all and end the fraud of the two party system in this country. I guess the Republicans are not the only ones to slip the cyanide in with the frosting in their parading of women and minorities in highly visible positions of responsibility.
I was quite disturbed to read the NYT interview where Barack appeared to backpedal away from his reluctant admission that he would probably not use nukes preemptively. This issue makes me fairly mad (that is insane) with anger at the officials of both parties and the American people in their lack of understanding of the implications of another release of the power of the atom as an act of war. Monday will be the 62nd anniversary of the destruction of Hiroshima (Aug 6, 1945). I probably do not have to inform the MWC News readers that historians are pretty much of the opinion that this use of atomic weapons was a colossal mistake. Human history, if there will continue to be such a thing much longer, will condemn the United States of America as having committed one of the greatest atrocities against humanity.
I have for the past year been trying in vain to get our Representatives and Senators in Washington to condemn any preemptive use of nuclear weapons by this country against Iran. I am deathly afraid that Bush and Co. are seriously contemplating just such an action. This will make this country an even greater universally condemned pariah in the eyes of the world than it already is. Long after we as a society have been buried beneath the rubble of our garbage, generations yet unborn will curse our existence. Yet, from these noble gentlemen and gentlewomen who presume to represent us, barely a peep is heard. Do they have no memory of history and not a shred of humanity that will move them to condemn such an action and take no stand to prevent a second such blunder on the world stage?
I cannot bear such a thought, and after hearing the two front runners in the Democratic Presidential race pussy foot around the issue I cannot bear either of them as well. This will probably get me put in some rendition program for saying so. But if Bush actually does bomb Iran on whatever trumped up charges he chooses, I plan on doing something dramatic that may actually get a local headline or two. don’t worry, it will be largely symbolic and non violent. And to give the Feds another charge to levy against me, I urge all patriotic Americans to do the same. Note to my enemies: Here is your chance to turn me in and score big points with our Department of Fatherland Security. Our second barbaric use of nuclear weaponry in anger cannot be tolerated by any sane person anywhere in the world. Those who do not do everything humanly possible to restore sanity to the body politic will be judged complicit in this crime.
Bob Boldt
PS
America’s treasury and America’s reputation are not all that has been trashed. The bridge collapse last week pointed out just how dramatically our infrastructure has been trashed as well. I really cannot understand how the popular rumor started that this government gives a crap for this country, its security or its people.
Registered
2. 05-08-2007 12:53
Nuclear weapons CAN be abolished
I thoroughly agree with your sensible comments, Bob - and especially those about nuclear weapons.
This is what Dr Tilman Ruff (President of Australia's Medical Association for the Prevention of War, MAPW) said about the EMINENT FEASIBILITY of ABIOLISHING NUCLEAR WEAPONS (ABC Radio National, 5 August 2007, Ockham's Razor nationwide science talk - see homepage link for URL:)
QUOTE: "Abolition has been seriously discussed at the highest political levels. It was called for in the very first resolution of the UN General Assembly in January, 1946. Presidents Reagan and Gorbachev agreed in 1985 that 'a nuclear war cannot be won and must never be fought', and agreed on the need to eliminate nuclear weapons. The sticking point then was Reagan refusing to rule out nuclear tests in space as part of missile defence.
A large body of authoritative reports from the 1996 Canberra Commission, to the 2006 Weapons of Mass Destruction Commission, describe how, through a series of binding, timebound, irreversible steps, nuclear weapons can be abolished. There are no insurmountable technical or legal obstacles. What is lacking is visionary leadership and the groundswell of irresistible pressure from mobilised citizens to make it happen."END QUOTE
This is what Dr Tilman Ruff (President of Australia's Medical Association for the Prevention of War, MAPW) said about the EMINENT FEASIBILITY of ABIOLISHING NUCLEAR WEAPONS (ABC Radio National, 5 August 2007, Ockham's Razor nationwide science talk - see homepage link for URL:)
QUOTE: "Abolition has been seriously discussed at the highest political levels. It was called for in the very first resolution of the UN General Assembly in January, 1946. Presidents Reagan and Gorbachev agreed in 1985 that 'a nuclear war cannot be won and must never be fought', and agreed on the need to eliminate nuclear weapons. The sticking point then was Reagan refusing to rule out nuclear tests in space as part of missile defence.
A large body of authoritative reports from the 1996 Canberra Commission, to the 2006 Weapons of Mass Destruction Commission, describe how, through a series of binding, timebound, irreversible steps, nuclear weapons can be abolished. There are no insurmountable technical or legal obstacles. What is lacking is visionary leadership and the groundswell of irresistible pressure from mobilised citizens to make it happen."END QUOTE
Guest
3. 05-08-2007 17:18
Do Proper Research Before You Write
Gideon, I think you should find yourself a different hobby, because you're really terrible at this- and you should be ashamed of yourself for trying to mislead the public.
"Strike Pakistan"? Where in Obama's speech did he talk about striking Pakistan? You know, if you want to write something that people will read, it will help if you first red what you're writing about. I've provided a link here, for you to read what Obama actually said.
http://www.barackobama.com/2007/08/01/remarks_of_senator_obama_the_w_1.php
And for your information, that very day, Hillary Clinton and John Edwards agreed with Obama. Bill Richardson criticized Obama after the speech because all he knew about the story was what he heard in the media. After he read the speech, yesterday at the Yearly Kos forum, he REPEATED THE EXACT SAME WORDS OBAMA SAID on Pakistan.
The Afghan president is accusing the Pakistani president of not doing enough to fight AL Qaida holed in Pakistan. The National Intelligence Estimate said terrorists are hiding in Pakistan and Musharraf is not pursuing them vigorously enough. The polls in America show that Americans agree that we should spend more effort pursuing the 9/11 killers hiding in Pakistan. If you think this is something Obama made up, then you're seriously mistaken.
Obama simply had the courage to say we would continue to provide billions of dollars to Pakistan only on the condition that it is doing more to fish out those terrorists, and he said IF we have ACTIONABLE INTELLIGENCE that there are HIGH-VALUE AL Qaida targets in Pakistan and president Musharraf will NOT act, WE WILL. How does that mean 'Strike Pakistan’?
I hope after reviewing the facts, you do the right thing and post an apology to Senator Obama.
"Strike Pakistan"? Where in Obama's speech did he talk about striking Pakistan? You know, if you want to write something that people will read, it will help if you first red what you're writing about. I've provided a link here, for you to read what Obama actually said.
http://www.barackobama.com/2007/08/01/remarks_of_senator_obama_the_w_1.php
And for your information, that very day, Hillary Clinton and John Edwards agreed with Obama. Bill Richardson criticized Obama after the speech because all he knew about the story was what he heard in the media. After he read the speech, yesterday at the Yearly Kos forum, he REPEATED THE EXACT SAME WORDS OBAMA SAID on Pakistan.
The Afghan president is accusing the Pakistani president of not doing enough to fight AL Qaida holed in Pakistan. The National Intelligence Estimate said terrorists are hiding in Pakistan and Musharraf is not pursuing them vigorously enough. The polls in America show that Americans agree that we should spend more effort pursuing the 9/11 killers hiding in Pakistan. If you think this is something Obama made up, then you're seriously mistaken.
Obama simply had the courage to say we would continue to provide billions of dollars to Pakistan only on the condition that it is doing more to fish out those terrorists, and he said IF we have ACTIONABLE INTELLIGENCE that there are HIGH-VALUE AL Qaida targets in Pakistan and president Musharraf will NOT act, WE WILL. How does that mean 'Strike Pakistan’?
I hope after reviewing the facts, you do the right thing and post an apology to Senator Obama.
Guest
4. 05-08-2007 17:55
Do Proper Research Before You Write
Quote:
It's all come to that. POLLS.
No one said he made that up. The problem is that he actually entertains the thought.
Quote:
"ACTIONABLE INTELLIGENCE" Like WMD in Iraq and Saddam relation with Al-Qaeda?
" WE WILL"
How will you act without strike? Send them an e-mail and ask for a donation?
This is not the first time Senator Obama puts his foot in his mouth. (Read his comment about Iran)
The polls in America show that Americans agree that we should spend more effort pursuing the 9/11 killers hiding in Pakistan. If you think this is something Obama made up, then you're seriously mistaken.
It's all come to that. POLLS.
No one said he made that up. The problem is that he actually entertains the thought.
Quote:
IF we have ACTIONABLE INTELLIGENCE that there are HIGH-VALUE AL Qaida targets in Pakistan and president Musharraf will NOT act, WE WILL. How does that mean 'Strike Pakistan’?
"ACTIONABLE INTELLIGENCE" Like WMD in Iraq and Saddam relation with Al-Qaeda?
" WE WILL"
How will you act without strike? Send them an e-mail and ask for a donation?
This is not the first time Senator Obama puts his foot in his mouth. (Read his comment about Iran)
Guest
5. 05-08-2007 18:21
Obama's WE WILL means FORCE
Why do Bush-ites, neo-cons, pro-Zionists, global warming sceptics, Creationists etc etc have to get so PERSONAL and NASTY - and BLATANTLY INCORRECT with it?
Thus #4 above asserts: "he [Obama] said IF we have ACTIONABLE INTELLIGENCE that there are HIGH-VALUE AL Qaida targets in Pakistan and president Musharraf will NOT act, WE WILL. How does that mean 'Strike Pakistan’?"
What else does "we will" mean other than "act violently" in this context?
I am quite sure that of those - right, left and centre - aware of Obama's "we will" out of 160 million Pakistanis, an overhwelming majority (from the Pakistani Foreign Minister to the demonstrators in the streets) are all too well aware of what "we will" means (even though English is not their primary language"). Ditto George W. Bush (although his English aint so good). And ditto the UK Guardian (where they really DO know their English) which today [6 August 2007] says "Threatening an unstable Pakistan with force isn't a prudent move for a would-be president".
Thus #4 above asserts: "he [Obama] said IF we have ACTIONABLE INTELLIGENCE that there are HIGH-VALUE AL Qaida targets in Pakistan and president Musharraf will NOT act, WE WILL. How does that mean 'Strike Pakistan’?"
What else does "we will" mean other than "act violently" in this context?
I am quite sure that of those - right, left and centre - aware of Obama's "we will" out of 160 million Pakistanis, an overhwelming majority (from the Pakistani Foreign Minister to the demonstrators in the streets) are all too well aware of what "we will" means (even though English is not their primary language"). Ditto George W. Bush (although his English aint so good). And ditto the UK Guardian (where they really DO know their English) which today [6 August 2007] says "Threatening an unstable Pakistan with force isn't a prudent move for a would-be president".
Guest
6. 06-08-2007 05:53
Get Real
"We Will", means we will take out or "strike" the terrorists, NOT Pakistan. Offcourse it means acting violently AGAINST THE TERRORISTS (again, NOT against Pakistan). Do you have a better way of dealing with terrorists?
Frankly, I'm disenchanted with this ignorance. If you think Obama is planning to invade Pakistan, then you need your head examined. Since you clearly have not red the speech, even though I included a link for you. This time, I hope you will at least read the latest story on the matter from this link:
http://www.mlive.com/newsflash/politics/index.ssf?/base/politics-10/1186380893138850.xml&storylist=electionmi
If you disagree with the use of force to take out terrorists in Pakistan, then I stand by Senator Obama and I have no interest in continuing this debate. But if you misunderstood his comments to mean he will "strike Pakistan" or "invade Pakistan", then I'll be happy to enlighten you because that's NOT what he said. Let me know your stance.
Frankly, I'm disenchanted with this ignorance. If you think Obama is planning to invade Pakistan, then you need your head examined. Since you clearly have not red the speech, even though I included a link for you. This time, I hope you will at least read the latest story on the matter from this link:
http://www.mlive.com/newsflash/politics/index.ssf?/base/politics-10/1186380893138850.xml&storylist=electionmi
If you disagree with the use of force to take out terrorists in Pakistan, then I stand by Senator Obama and I have no interest in continuing this debate. But if you misunderstood his comments to mean he will "strike Pakistan" or "invade Pakistan", then I'll be happy to enlighten you because that's NOT what he said. Let me know your stance.
Guest
7. 06-08-2007 10:03
re=Dr. Bona
At least Dr. Bona agrees with us that there was no misunderstanding and distortion of the facts. Senator Obama did mean military strike.
All is left for us to do is to predict the outcome by deductive logic.
US Military has two options to strike any group inside of Pakistan (this is based on Senator Obama assumption of General Musharraf unwillingness to cooperate.)
By land or air strike
The first one is not practical for two reasons: 1- US defence policy is to minimize it's military causalities in the expense of none-combatant lives.
2- Any attempt to send a military forces to a sovereign nation, would be considered invasion and act of war against that nation.
Which bring us to second option that is strike by air. This action aside from being a direct violation of intentional laws, will also have a high probability of harming Innocent civilians in the process and indeed would be strike against Pakistanis.
After all, Nato's action in Afghanistan, US in Iraq and Israel in Gaza have demosterated that the causalities would be more (about 600% more) civilians then insurgencies.
Quote:
It's not our job to find a solution for your politicians, however in this case we have few suggestions;
- Stop funding and sponsoring the terrorists and dictator in the region, because enemy of your enemies is not necessarily your friend.
- Do not vote warmongers to office
Quote:
By whom? By Americans? You have neither moral nor legal authorities for that.
You do not need to attack Pakistan to eradicate the terrorists, start little closer to home in Washington
Sadly 3000 lives were lost in 9/11, aside from illogic of the assumption that 9/11 attack was unprovoked, since then more then ONE MILLION lives has been lost in response to 9/11.
How many more innocents have to die to satisfy Americans thirst for revenge?
The truth is that most American politicians are not anti-war, they have no problem attacking or invading other countries, they criticize the Bush administration in respect to Iraq war because they could not simply deliver the goods.
All is left for us to do is to predict the outcome by deductive logic.
US Military has two options to strike any group inside of Pakistan (this is based on Senator Obama assumption of General Musharraf unwillingness to cooperate.)
By land or air strike
The first one is not practical for two reasons: 1- US defence policy is to minimize it's military causalities in the expense of none-combatant lives.
2- Any attempt to send a military forces to a sovereign nation, would be considered invasion and act of war against that nation.
Which bring us to second option that is strike by air. This action aside from being a direct violation of intentional laws, will also have a high probability of harming Innocent civilians in the process and indeed would be strike against Pakistanis.
After all, Nato's action in Afghanistan, US in Iraq and Israel in Gaza have demosterated that the causalities would be more (about 600% more) civilians then insurgencies.
Quote:
Do you have a better way of dealing with terrorists?
It's not our job to find a solution for your politicians, however in this case we have few suggestions;
- Stop funding and sponsoring the terrorists and dictator in the region, because enemy of your enemies is not necessarily your friend.
- Do not vote warmongers to office
Quote:
If you disagree with the use of force to take out terrorists in Pakistan,
By whom? By Americans? You have neither moral nor legal authorities for that.
You do not need to attack Pakistan to eradicate the terrorists, start little closer to home in Washington
Sadly 3000 lives were lost in 9/11, aside from illogic of the assumption that 9/11 attack was unprovoked, since then more then ONE MILLION lives has been lost in response to 9/11.
How many more innocents have to die to satisfy Americans thirst for revenge?
The truth is that most American politicians are not anti-war, they have no problem attacking or invading other countries, they criticize the Bush administration in respect to Iraq war because they could not simply deliver the goods.
Registered
8. 06-08-2007 10:34
9. 06-08-2007 12:02
also see
Shahram, I will only continue this debate on the condition that you and everyone else read this fully:
http://www.barackobama.com/2007/08/01/remarks_of_senator_obama_the_w_1.php
Then, I'l come back and we can have an intelligent debate. Please let's stick to the original topic, which is what Barack Obama said in his speech. I have a feeling you were drifting into something which I happen to agree with you on (US funding of dictators, etc). But let's stick to Obama, whom the author rudely called "Bomber".
Now, follow the link and read the text if you please and then we'll take it from there. Thanks.
http://www.barackobama.com/2007/08/01/remarks_of_senator_obama_the_w_1.php
Then, I'l come back and we can have an intelligent debate. Please let's stick to the original topic, which is what Barack Obama said in his speech. I have a feeling you were drifting into something which I happen to agree with you on (US funding of dictators, etc). But let's stick to Obama, whom the author rudely called "Bomber".
Now, follow the link and read the text if you please and then we'll take it from there. Thanks.
Guest
10. 06-08-2007 13:28
Invading countires is evil, "terrorism"
Invading other countries without the express permission of the UN is illegal, wrong, evil, a war crime and, in present parlance of the egregiously dishonest Bush-ite war criminals, "terrorism".
Decent folk don't "debate" the illegal invasion of other countries no more than they "debate" robbing banks, rape, embezzlement or child abuse.
However the problem with Bush Amerika is that the obvious needs to be "debated" e.g. it is necessary to repeatedly tell these creatures that you don't rob, steal, rape, embezzle, abuse - which is what Amerika variously does to a long-suffering World.
Even in Amerika, it has been estimated by child-abuse scholars that 25% of American females and 10% of males have suffered child sexual abuse - unfortunately someone needs to tell a substantial body of Bush-ite Amerikans that raping or otherwise violating ANY children (American or non-American) is wrong (to which one supposes they will bleat - but WHAT IF THEY ARE TERRORISTS or WILL GROW UP TO BE TERRORISTS?).
The horrible reality is that Bush-ite Amerikans are grossly violating CHILDREN both at home and abroad. Importantly, an important recent State Government Report in Australia refers to studies in AMERICA indicating that 25% of females and 10% of males experience childhood sexual abuse (Finkelhor, D. (1994), Current information on the scope and nature of child sexual abuse”, Future of Children, 4(2), pp31-53) and in AUSTRALIA indicating that 34% of females and 16% of males experienced non-penetrative abuse with 12% females and 4% of males reporting penetrative child sexual abuse (Dunne, M.P., Purdie, D.M., Cook, M.D., Boyle, F.M. & Najman, J.M.(2003), Is child sexual abuse declining? Evidence from a population-based survey of men and women in Australia, Child Abuse & Neglect, vol. 27 (2), pp141-152). (see LINK provided below).
According to UNICEF (Google UNICEF) in Occupied Afghanistan 1,000 (ONE THOUSAND) under-5 year old infantds die EVERY DAY (90% avoidably and due to deliberate Bush Amerikan war crimes) - that's fundamentally why A Bomber Obama wanting to do the same to adjacent Pakistani Waziristan is utterly OBSCENE and EVIL.
However perhaps - in the face of human norms - decent folk might HAVE to "debate" war criminal behaviour since ALL the major presidential candidates (not just A Bomber Obama) are FOR war criminal invasion of other countries - however all decent folk can really keep on REPEATING is that (a) the killing of people involved (especially of women and children) is evil (b)it is illegal under the UN Charter.
Decent folk don't "debate" the illegal invasion of other countries no more than they "debate" robbing banks, rape, embezzlement or child abuse.
However the problem with Bush Amerika is that the obvious needs to be "debated" e.g. it is necessary to repeatedly tell these creatures that you don't rob, steal, rape, embezzle, abuse - which is what Amerika variously does to a long-suffering World.
Even in Amerika, it has been estimated by child-abuse scholars that 25% of American females and 10% of males have suffered child sexual abuse - unfortunately someone needs to tell a substantial body of Bush-ite Amerikans that raping or otherwise violating ANY children (American or non-American) is wrong (to which one supposes they will bleat - but WHAT IF THEY ARE TERRORISTS or WILL GROW UP TO BE TERRORISTS?).
The horrible reality is that Bush-ite Amerikans are grossly violating CHILDREN both at home and abroad. Importantly, an important recent State Government Report in Australia refers to studies in AMERICA indicating that 25% of females and 10% of males experience childhood sexual abuse (Finkelhor, D. (1994), Current information on the scope and nature of child sexual abuse”, Future of Children, 4(2), pp31-53) and in AUSTRALIA indicating that 34% of females and 16% of males experienced non-penetrative abuse with 12% females and 4% of males reporting penetrative child sexual abuse (Dunne, M.P., Purdie, D.M., Cook, M.D., Boyle, F.M. & Najman, J.M.(2003), Is child sexual abuse declining? Evidence from a population-based survey of men and women in Australia, Child Abuse & Neglect, vol. 27 (2), pp141-152). (see LINK provided below).
According to UNICEF (Google UNICEF) in Occupied Afghanistan 1,000 (ONE THOUSAND) under-5 year old infantds die EVERY DAY (90% avoidably and due to deliberate Bush Amerikan war crimes) - that's fundamentally why A Bomber Obama wanting to do the same to adjacent Pakistani Waziristan is utterly OBSCENE and EVIL.
However perhaps - in the face of human norms - decent folk might HAVE to "debate" war criminal behaviour since ALL the major presidential candidates (not just A Bomber Obama) are FOR war criminal invasion of other countries - however all decent folk can really keep on REPEATING is that (a) the killing of people involved (especially of women and children) is evil (b)it is illegal under the UN Charter.
Guest
11. 06-08-2007 14:29
Dr. Bona
Remarks of Senator Obama: (from the link, which you provided)
"And so, a little more than a year after that bright September day, I was in the streets of Chicago again, this time speaking at a rally in opposition to war in Iraq. I did not oppose all wars,.. "
And from the news reported by us
"If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won't act, we will," Obama said.
"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."
I believe we both accept the accuracy of these quotes.
Our difference is that you are attempting to somehow justify what has been said by Senator Obama and we are criticizing it.
We both have our reason for this. I don't want to speculate your reason but we strongly support human rights, social Justice and international laws, believing that the United Nations is the sole authority to impose any military action against any country on the planet.
Quote:
I thought we were doing that.
In my last comment I have outlined the options, and you also emphasised on military strike, the logical option for a military strike comes to bombing, therefore Dr. Polya's calling Senator Obama "bomber" was not out of line.
In final, I am ready to debate anyone on the issue that why US can not and must not take unilateral military action against any country, regardless of any "Actionable intelligence."
PS: Last year US forces attacked a village [Damadola] in Pakistan based on "intelligence" believing it is the hideout of Osama bin Laden’s top deputy, Ayman Al-Zawahri.
The result was according to:
"An AP reporter who visited Damadola about 12 hours after the attack saw three destroyed houses, hundreds of yards apart. Villagers had buried at least 15 people, including women and children, and were digging for more bodies in the rubble. "
"And so, a little more than a year after that bright September day, I was in the streets of Chicago again, this time speaking at a rally in opposition to war in Iraq. I did not oppose all wars,.. "
And from the news reported by us
"If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won't act, we will," Obama said.
"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."
I believe we both accept the accuracy of these quotes.
Our difference is that you are attempting to somehow justify what has been said by Senator Obama and we are criticizing it.
We both have our reason for this. I don't want to speculate your reason but we strongly support human rights, social Justice and international laws, believing that the United Nations is the sole authority to impose any military action against any country on the planet.
Quote:
But let's stick to Obama, whom the author rudely called "Bomber".
I thought we were doing that.
In my last comment I have outlined the options, and you also emphasised on military strike, the logical option for a military strike comes to bombing, therefore Dr. Polya's calling Senator Obama "bomber" was not out of line.
In final, I am ready to debate anyone on the issue that why US can not and must not take unilateral military action against any country, regardless of any "Actionable intelligence."
PS: Last year US forces attacked a village [Damadola] in Pakistan based on "intelligence" believing it is the hideout of Osama bin Laden’s top deputy, Ayman Al-Zawahri.
The result was according to:
"An AP reporter who visited Damadola about 12 hours after the attack saw three destroyed houses, hundreds of yards apart. Villagers had buried at least 15 people, including women and children, and were digging for more bodies in the rubble. "
Guest
12. 06-08-2007 14:38
Dr. Bona
Gideon, what do you refer to as 'illegal invasion'? Invasion is never legal. It is morally wrong and wrong in every other sense, that's why it must be condemned. That's why our President shouldn't have invaded Iraq- it had nothing to do with those who attacked us on 9/11 and killed 3000 of our citizens.
But this debate arose because you obscured the truth and said Obama would 'invade' Pakistan. INVADE is defined as TO ENTER BY FORCE IN ORDER TO CONQUER OR PILLAGE.
I gave you this link and asked you to READ the text and tell me where Obama said he would invade Pakistan.
http://www.barackobama.com/2007/08/01/remarks_of_senator_obama_the_w_1.php
You clearly didn't read it. Obviously it's impossible to have an intelligent debate with you. So I'll just leave you to enjoy your blog by yourself. Goodbye.
But this debate arose because you obscured the truth and said Obama would 'invade' Pakistan. INVADE is defined as TO ENTER BY FORCE IN ORDER TO CONQUER OR PILLAGE.
I gave you this link and asked you to READ the text and tell me where Obama said he would invade Pakistan.
http://www.barackobama.com/2007/08/01/remarks_of_senator_obama_the_w_1.php
You clearly didn't read it. Obviously it's impossible to have an intelligent debate with you. So I'll just leave you to enjoy your blog by yourself. Goodbye.
Guest
13. 06-08-2007 15:13
Bomber Obama & invasion
Invasion means to abusively enter the space of another - now whether that is flattening Pakistani Waziristan with conventional bombs (Bomber Obama's preferred choice, this being the #1 choice of high technology but cowardly, dishonorable, racist, child-killing Amerika for half a century) or nuclear bombs (Bomber Obama's stated possible option as reported by the New York Times "provided there are no civilians") or sending in the Marines (i.e. after killing as many civilians as they can by remote bombing) it is still war criminal, illegal, racist INVASION - just as the Amerikans who rape 25% of female American children and who rape 10% of male American children are also INVADING.
Decent folk around the world (and indeed most vociferously in the America that the World still loves) plead endlessly to the Bush-ite Amerikans - stop INVADING (bombing, devastating, occupying) other countries and stop INVADING (raping, sexually abusing) American children.
Decent folk around the world (and indeed most vociferously in the America that the World still loves) plead endlessly to the Bush-ite Amerikans - stop INVADING (bombing, devastating, occupying) other countries and stop INVADING (raping, sexually abusing) American children.
Guest
14. 06-08-2007 15:34
Bomber Obama & invasion
Hello Shahram.
It is no secret that we went to Iraq because we wanted to take control of their oil. Which was wrong.
And you may disagree with me on this, but it is our duty to hunt down and kill those who attcked us on 9/11. It must be done the right way. that's why Senator Obama emphasized 'actionable intelligence', not the kind that sent us to Iraq.
Senator Obama's plan consists of 5 elements, which include diplomatic, economic, educational as well as military approaches. It's unfortunate that the media seems to be more interested in hyping the military option, which Senator Obama explained would only be reserved for extremes like dealing with terrorists. Like it or not, we don't hold diplomatic talks with terrorists.
Senator Obama used a scenario to explain his point. If there was 'actionable intelligence' that Bin Laden was somewhere (like the opportunity we missed in 2006), the preference would be for Pakistan to take him out. If they don't have the resources or the intention to do so, he will not let the mastermind of 9/11 slip. Now, this means we will go after the terrorist ourselves. It doesn't mean we will attack or strike or invade or bomb or take military action against Pakistan as a nation. Quite Frankly, if Pakistan is a genuine ally of the US (which Afghan president Hamid Karzai doubts), there's no reason why he would object. That's why this is just an 'If'. I happen to agree with Senator Obama on this and so does 70% of Americans. Perhaps this is where we disagree.
This whole thing got out of proportion because the MSM decided to spin it and others copied from what they read from the media. No one reported that Senator Clinton and John Edwards agreed with senator Obama. Perhaps Dr. Polya should've also written "Bomber Clinton and Bomber Edwards agree with Bomber Obama". Bill Richardson said Obama's comments were careless (probably because he hadn't read the speech). Yesterday at the Yearly Koss forum, he said the same thing "IF MUSHARAF DOESN'T, WE WILL", referring to taking out terrorists holed up in Pakistan.
It was nice of you to finally read the text.
It is no secret that we went to Iraq because we wanted to take control of their oil. Which was wrong.
And you may disagree with me on this, but it is our duty to hunt down and kill those who attcked us on 9/11. It must be done the right way. that's why Senator Obama emphasized 'actionable intelligence', not the kind that sent us to Iraq.
Senator Obama's plan consists of 5 elements, which include diplomatic, economic, educational as well as military approaches. It's unfortunate that the media seems to be more interested in hyping the military option, which Senator Obama explained would only be reserved for extremes like dealing with terrorists. Like it or not, we don't hold diplomatic talks with terrorists.
Senator Obama used a scenario to explain his point. If there was 'actionable intelligence' that Bin Laden was somewhere (like the opportunity we missed in 2006), the preference would be for Pakistan to take him out. If they don't have the resources or the intention to do so, he will not let the mastermind of 9/11 slip. Now, this means we will go after the terrorist ourselves. It doesn't mean we will attack or strike or invade or bomb or take military action against Pakistan as a nation. Quite Frankly, if Pakistan is a genuine ally of the US (which Afghan president Hamid Karzai doubts), there's no reason why he would object. That's why this is just an 'If'. I happen to agree with Senator Obama on this and so does 70% of Americans. Perhaps this is where we disagree.
This whole thing got out of proportion because the MSM decided to spin it and others copied from what they read from the media. No one reported that Senator Clinton and John Edwards agreed with senator Obama. Perhaps Dr. Polya should've also written "Bomber Clinton and Bomber Edwards agree with Bomber Obama". Bill Richardson said Obama's comments were careless (probably because he hadn't read the speech). Yesterday at the Yearly Koss forum, he said the same thing "IF MUSHARAF DOESN'T, WE WILL", referring to taking out terrorists holed up in Pakistan.
It was nice of you to finally read the text.
Guest
15. 06-08-2007 15:37
16. 06-08-2007 16:02
Bomber Obama & invasion
Quote:
Are you kidding me? How else would you go after the terrorists assuming that Pakistan would not cooperate and most certainly Pakistani government would not allow US forces inside their border. (they rejected this idea from the start)
This discussion is not about Pakistan being a genuine ally of the US or not.
It is about a mind set (you say 70% of Americans) which they do not want to take any responsibility for their conduct in past 50 years or so and it is about a prominent US politician who is defying the international laws even before becoming a president.
What about the option that if US had a credible evidence on whereabouts of terrorists in any state, and the government of that state would refuse to deal with them according to the international laws and treaties, then US representative would take this matter to UN?
But that would be too unpopular among American public and will not generate any support or rating of opinion polls. Am I right?
Now, this means we will go after the terrorist ourselves. It doesn't mean we will attack or strike or invade or bomb or take military action against Pakistan as a nation.
Are you kidding me? How else would you go after the terrorists assuming that Pakistan would not cooperate and most certainly Pakistani government would not allow US forces inside their border. (they rejected this idea from the start)
This discussion is not about Pakistan being a genuine ally of the US or not.
It is about a mind set (you say 70% of Americans) which they do not want to take any responsibility for their conduct in past 50 years or so and it is about a prominent US politician who is defying the international laws even before becoming a president.
What about the option that if US had a credible evidence on whereabouts of terrorists in any state, and the government of that state would refuse to deal with them according to the international laws and treaties, then US representative would take this matter to UN?
But that would be too unpopular among American public and will not generate any support or rating of opinion polls. Am I right?
Guest
17. 22-03-2008 06:55
Bomber Obama & invasion
AL Qaida. Exactly who are these people? They are so secretive, that there in nothing about them in international press.
We search borders trying to kill these AL Qaida people? It sounds like crap to me.
Really, there weren\'t problems seen in Pakistan until the US decided to set up settlements there...what four or five years ago?!
The article gives historical perspective and follows with rhetoric told by Hillary and Barak. It seems Barak reads polls, then, makes policy comments. Hillary follows past American debates and leadership policy in her statements.
Dr Gideon Polya is well studied. His words follow the fears and distrust many, many people carry. Actually, Polya was conserative in his statement here in this article.
It\'s important to us all to stop the talk about nuclear bombing and even dirty bombing. That is the sub-point made here by this article. So many other issues should be at the frontlines of all debates.
Melting of polar caps, vast homlessness in the US and abroad, lack of usable water, desertification of our lands, non-affordability of healthy food stocks. I could go on. I hope the point is made:
The US and other major players are obessed with dehumanization of the species.
We search borders trying to kill these AL Qaida people? It sounds like crap to me.
Really, there weren\'t problems seen in Pakistan until the US decided to set up settlements there...what four or five years ago?!
The article gives historical perspective and follows with rhetoric told by Hillary and Barak. It seems Barak reads polls, then, makes policy comments. Hillary follows past American debates and leadership policy in her statements.
Dr Gideon Polya is well studied. His words follow the fears and distrust many, many people carry. Actually, Polya was conserative in his statement here in this article.
It\'s important to us all to stop the talk about nuclear bombing and even dirty bombing. That is the sub-point made here by this article. So many other issues should be at the frontlines of all debates.
Melting of polar caps, vast homlessness in the US and abroad, lack of usable water, desertification of our lands, non-affordability of healthy food stocks. I could go on. I hope the point is made:
The US and other major players are obessed with dehumanization of the species.
Guest
Write Comment
|
Powered by AkoComment Tweaked Special Edition v.1.4.4
Tags: Gideon Polya Barack Obama Pakistan.