EDIT: since i suspect the thread will be closed anyway, I might as well add to pay attention to Obama's support of Israel over the next year or 2, especially in comparison to Bush's time in office. This is something I've been looking into since the gaza invasion and I've been reassured by what I've found.
"Was I happy when Bush got elected? No"
Bush was never elected. Not ever.
Obama has appointed criminal insiders from the Clinton days. They have records. Look them up.
They aren't going to "change" anything substantial. This was all very clear a long time ago.
Obama's also keeping war criminal Gates on as War Secretary.
As for what he did on his first two days, you forgot the murder of 15 people in Pakistan by missile attacks (when Palestinians fire missiles across borders it's supposedly a bad thing). At the press conference, Obama's spokesman refused to even acknowledge that they had fired missiles into Pakistan. Nevermind justify the actions.
This is essentially a war crime, by day 2. It is an act of war, a provocation and a violation of Pakistan's sovereignty. Not a good start.
All the empty rhetoric (ad nauseum) about openness and change, and Obama's press functionary wouldn't even acknowledge what was going on at the Pakistani border. Pakistan is a nuclear state, it should be noted.
Hard to battle delusions broadcast nonstop in an atmosphere of confetti. Obama is appearing to do a few things right. He is a master of appearances. I'll wait to see what really results, and I will not give him the honeymoon seemingly demanded. That's for fawning press idiots.
However, would there be a conflict anymore without this arms shipments? I think it would be at least way smaller. This video of the conference shows again how corrupt one has to be in order to get elected. Politics considering Isreals didn't change that much, whether Clinton or Bush was in charge.
Just read an interview with the former chief of Mossad. He compares the gaza offensive with hiroshima in order to save Isreal from total destruction. Yeah, with one of the fifth biggest armies in the world and nuclear bombs.. sure. Very believeable.
The world has had plenty of time to come up with suggestions, as well, those in the conflict have had plenty of time to reach agreements, but when the conflict is a core ideology/eternity difference the world fools itself to believe such an agreement will be reached, and instead everyone in the world chooses to pick a side to point their finger at until someone else takes it too far. At this point the world can sigh and say "oh what a shame" and help pick up the pieces, instead of dealing with the problem head on. How do you reverse an education and a lifetime of HATE? Really think about that. Since we can't, we pick a side and throw money at it.
All armchair quarterbacking and "who caused the most civilian death" arguments are sadly irrelevant in the long term, focusing on the result of the problem is not focusing on the problem, and the outcome is always the same: MORE WAR.
That people that run this country (not the elected officials) want a constant state of war. The book "War is a Racket" by The most beloved war hero of the WWI era, Major General Smedley Butler tells the eternal tale.
This same man testified before Congress that the wealthiest men in the world approached him with a plan to raise a domestic army and overthrough Franklin Roosevelt... because FDR had plans to enable a middle class and that's not what the Rothchilds wanted.
The only answer is for people to turn their backs on the military en masse. That's pretty tough to do when the media in every country is used to scare the hell out of every populace. And who owns all the media everywhere? Oh yeah, the trillionaires.
I'm closing this thread, it's not going to end well...
|« Previous Thread | Next Thread »|