Reactions to Obama's speech

[jwlabs]

Ok, so now we know Obama was nothing but a scam designed to protect Bush as he exits scott free.

All the enthusiasm and speculation about Obama was nothing but wishful, and very foolish thinking.

I knew that would be it, even before I first heard his name. A scam.

You have now been scammed...

Enjoy.

[SixtySeventh]

@jwlabs Do you honestly think that ANYONE, especially some religious, hyper capitlist freak of a republican, could soak up the mess that Bush left behind him? If you say yes, and are refering to McCain; you truly do live up to the laughable stereotype of an ignorant, dumbfounded dipshit trash hole that is the averege American intellect.

[GeoliphicMedia]

4:08 First time I've seen Tom smile!!! I've been supporting Obama with my fingers crossed since before the primary. I've always found him to be very mainstream...we need a wake up call to the whole country! Saddest point: so much talk about energy solutions but not a word for reducing consumption (the real solution).

[NWOpartycrasher]

Obama is the offshore bankers lil bitch

[TheSearchForTheLight]

You don't believe the global warming ting, do you?

[0613162k]

How many Obama supporters ever come away from his speech knowing that his policies invole:

1 continued occupation in Iraq

2 increased war in Afghanistan war

3 a new war in Pakistan

4 military expansion when US in debt

5 continued annual funding of military aid to Israel to pander to AIPAC

His candidacy is historic, but people need to wake up and look past identiy politics of an African American (Obama),a women (Hillary & now Palin)and war hero (McCain), and their militant foreign policy.

[nubbs]

how many anti war advocates know:

1 iraqi parliament agrees a small presence is necessary to stabilize any flare ups of violence

2 over 80% of afghans want nato to stay and route out the taliban, which enjoys less than 12% support.

3 al qaeda actually operates in the moutains between pakistan and afghanistan and only a coward would let them plan another attack in safety

4 just not true. obama would reduce overall military spending.

5 obama has the support of hamas

[blade1080]

"iraqi parliament agrees" what a pretentious answer and if you knew anything you would know that the ENTIRE REASON for any flare ups of violence is BECAUSE of the occupation not in spite of it. Your defense about afgan is humorous because in your first statement you use the elite opinion of iraq and now you use the populous of afgan, although you forgot to mention that 90% of iraqis want us out NOW..but im sure you forgot that cause it doesn't support your views.

[nubbs]

1. you don't understand the word "pretentious". get a dictionary

2. the flare ups are from shias who want to kill sunnis. americans have nothing to do with it. sadr is the real enemy of peace.

3. iraqis democratic parliament decided that all troops must leave by 2011. not 2009. 2011. follow the news much?

4. fact: 80% of all afghans support the continued presence of nato troops. PM for the links.

5. like chomsky says: there is no good solution in iraq. pulling out and staying are both bad

[blade1080]

Okay Prentenious: making claim to or creating an appearance of (often undeserved) importance or distinction. hmm sounds correct to me...its kinda telling that you yourself don't define it in your response...are you embarrassed...you must be. Also this whole shia sunni thing has become an issue ever since we took out sadam but we obviously had nothing to do with that. If you really think troop presence had nothing to do with violence in the country then you really have been brainwashed.

[blade1080]

Also you keep repeating your points instead of addressing my criticism of your arguments. I asked you why you pick and choose info like using pop. of afgan and not the pop. of iraq. The people of iraq want us out you refuse to address that. If you are gonna use the pop argument for afgan then you gotta use that with iraq as well. you can't discriminate. And chomsky is not a credible source, he has not been to iraq and only nows very little info on the ground.

[nubbs]

you are racist, and i dont bother continuing conversations with racists.

[Staubdumm]

To be a credible source, you have to be there? I am sure you get the credibal sources from the US-military, who are very keen in depicting their mission as freedomloving and caring.

What about independent iraqi-journalist. What about the whole population which want you out of there? The american soldiers are still occupying it. And you never have paid for the atrocities you have done. An atrocitiy is for example supporting Saddam when he gased the kurds and killed his own people. Thanks Us.

[nubbs]

no no. i was responding to someone who said that because i hadn't been there i could not know what was going on.

im not here to argue about the immoral and illegal invasion and occupation of iraq

[blade1080]

But if you wanna bring up elitist opinion then you will know that hamid karsai the pres of afgan said our presence is WEAKENING the security afgan. In statement 3 your pretty much advocating bombing pakistan. SO you just defended 3 wars that obama has said are on the table...and then you say he WOULDN'T increase military spending!! Are you completely demented! despite the total contradiction here you are also ignorant of what obama actually has said which is that he WILL increase mili spending.

[nubbs]

1. who are these "elites" you keep talking about, you conspiracy nut?

2 you know nothing about developments in helmund and khandahar provinces, where support for NATO is overwhelming

3 obama would withdraw from iraq and get NATO members to step up in afghanistan, which is a NATO mission with UN sanction, you fucking moron. read the news much?

4. he would massively decrease military spending. good to see you've been paying attention to his speeches

[blade1080]

oh yea and obama has the support of hamas....They support him because they think Hussein obama is MUSLIM!! so they support a misunderstanding of their candidate...kinda like you. Anyway that point aside obama has said several times that he is UNWILLING to speak to the leaders of hamas(preconditions or not)

[nubbs]

really? you've spoken to hamas and they told you this is why they support him? it has nothing to do with statement obama has made in the past concerning his two state solution? it has nothing to do with the fact he recognized hamas as the legitimate democratic government of palestinian territories?

and look! more lies! obama has said he would speak with hamas, and that he agreed with jimmy carter's trip (out wait, i forgot - you dont pay attention to the news)

[blade1080]

okay you are either senile or lying. Obama had said exactly the opposite of what you claim. In his speech to aipac he said hamas is a terrorist group that CAN'T be reasoned with. Its almost as if you took his statements and flipped them. And AGREEING with jimmy carter...hmm thats weird cause he just excluded carter from speaking ABOUT peace at the DNC. One would think that if he agreed with him he'd let him funking talk. but im afraid that requires a critical thinking mind.

[0613162k]

Not true.

For military expansion, go to his website and read his 21st centuary military plan factdheet on wanting to increase no. of troops.

For Israel/ Palestine, his rhetoric of talking to "enemies" made them think he'd be open to talking to them, but he says explicitly he won't talk to Hamas (even though I don't condone actions of them or Israeli government), And continued military funding to Israel by US, emboldens support for militant voices than majority for peace in occupied Palestine.

[nubbs]

i think if you were an israeli you would take the threat of iran seriously.

he has said he would reduce overall military spending by about 10-15%. i suppose you could still increase troop levels while decreasing overall spending on expensive things like aircraft carriers etc, but i think every knows the military is as big as it will ever get.

he congratulated jimmy carter on speaking with hamas, and carter support obama. obama has recognized hamas as the legitimate government

[0613162k]

Actually he condemmened and distanced himself from Carter following his visit. The country Palestine has not even been mentioned in this election by anyone other than Nader. He speaks of Hamas as one that will have no negotiations with if you listen to his AIPAC speech.

Secondly, being objective on the Israel- Iran relations, it is complete hypocracy for Israel with an entire arsenal of nuclear weapons to be threatned by the potential of Iran to develop 1 that hasn't yet been developed.

[nubbs]

it's no coincidence that israel, which has had nucleas weapons since the early seventies, has never once fired one. thus, no one should have any reason to fear an israeli first strike

can you say the same about iran

obamas israeli policy has shifted 80 degrees since he announced for president

as american politicians go, hes about as even handed as you get - which is why both carter and kucinich have endorsed him

and obama mentioned the palstinian territories when he visited israel last month

[Staubdumm]

Actually, Iranian gov. made very sensible proposals: They said that they want a nuclear free zone, including no nuclear devices in Iran and Israel. This proposal was rejected by Israel and US. As a result, the corrupt iranian government proves the hypocrisy of the world leaders concerning Israels policy.

Iran knows that they will be erased totally when they fire an nuclear bomb. They never will do this.

[nubbs]

actually, iran has lied several times about it's nuclear program and so can't really be trusted.

again, the fact that israel has had nuclear weapons for over 3 decades and has never once used one speaks to the fact it will not strike first.

can you say the same about iran?

the iranian people, especially those under 35, are largely western in their values. they don't like ahmadinnerjacket and they don't want any nuclear power or weapons

[Staubdumm]

Israel still doesn't talk about it's own nuclear program. So they deceive the public. The one who reported that Israel has weapons was arrested and nearly killed. Please don't have double standart.

You simply don't want to have it true that iranian were more forthcoming towards nuclear bombs than Israel. If the US-Israel is really interested in a nuclear free-zone, they would have approved and watched the result. Anyone who is serious does this. "not trusting" is an cheap excuse.

[nubbs]

look, if you feel safer in a world with a nuclear iran than i have to disagree with you.

i think everyone would feel safer in a world with no nuclear weapons, but i don't fear an israeli nuclear first strike. i guess we have to disagree here too.

that's fine. but if you were an irsaeli i think you would feel much safer having a nuclear weapon when a country like iran doesn't acknowledge your existence and talks about wiping your country off the map

[Staubdumm]

Ahmadenijad never said this. It's a well known myth. He said "the israeli government must perish from page of time", which is ok because the israeli government is not the country (totalitarean) nor it's represantative (even on the important issues).

Googel & see the right translation.

It's not about feeling. As I said, iranian gov. made a clear and sensitive proposals. Now look who stopped the peace process and whom you defend. Israel had no concience when they bombed "Tuwaitha" in Iraq.

[0613162k]

Also, go to any other media source other than US war media & they're saying greater no. of Afghan civilians have died in Afghanistan "war on terror" than in 9/11,and NATO nations are increasingly against this war that they'e being dragged into. Occupation again has increased no. of militant Taliban members which Afghgan civilians are now trapped in conflict between Taliban & NATO.

Also, history shows Afghanistan will always resist occupation of British empre, Soviets & now US led NATO force

[nubbs]

the fact is that more than 2 /3 of afghans want the continued presence of NATO, and its as high as 80% in helmund and kandahar where the taliban is strongest

the taliban has killed more innocent civilians than NATO has

you can't compare NATO, who want to kill the taliban who helped al qaeda attack america, with russia or great britain, which wanted to stay and occupy the country

NATO has done more good than bad, and more afghans agree with this

im sorry this conflicts your antiwar sentiments

[Staubdumm]

The Afghans suffered when they got invaded by russians. The Taliban got armed with weapons, money and (!) Qurans to fight the "infidel sowjet". Who is responsible for all this? Who arms religios madman? The US-UK government.

Nato is occupying. You don't ask "what's the best for afghans" when the sowjet union invaded afghanistan. The Afghans had at least water and energy under them (not justifying it).

People said: "Get out, you invaded this country". Same is true with Nato today.

[nubbs]

actually, afghans say please stay and help rebuild our country and protect us from the taliaban. like you american politicians who armed the taliban 25 years ago (actually, it was really only one politician who did it in secret), we didn't know the taliban would become so evil

the taliban has killed more innocent civilians than NATO has. if you have any moral conscience you would be more concerned with eliminating the taliban then getting NATO, who protect the NGOs, out of afghanistan.

goodbye

[Staubdumm]

Oh come on. The US even sent Qurans to make them "religious fanatic". They knew perfectly well that they are brutal, but didn't care. What they cared is to harm the sowjets. And it was not secret, it was approved by the president, nobody takes millions of money from the state budget and financias what he wants. There are declassified documents out there.

If you had moral conscience, you would not try to justify automatically where the Taliban got their weapons&power from (US-UK-gov).

[nubbs]

"they" ... im sorry, but you obviously have little knowledge of just what exactly the cia did in afghanistan to help the mujahideen (which is not the same as the taliban) defeat the evil USSR

either you think afghans are better off with the taliban of with the imperfect democracy they now have

either you think afghans prefer the imperfect democracy to the taliban or you do not

unfortunately, the facts show afghans prefer the imperfect democracy.

so where does your solidarity lie?

[Staubdumm]

You can as make it as harmless as you wish, you can't put the responsibility of the US-UK government out. They should be sued and not regarded as heroes, who freed the country.

The facts show that under Nato nearly third of the population nearly starved. I know that the Afghans want a (!) stabalizing force

in their country. You don't have to force a starving human to sign your occupation-contract. And this contract clearly misuses the afghan people for western interest in their need of help.

[Staubdumm]

And by the way: The war aim was not to help the afghan people, that was declared AFTER the attack. So there intention really never was. Oh do you believe in the morality of - in this case western - leaders?

[rangedkid]

False information. You need to get your ass out of others countries.

[nubbs]

You need to get your ass out of canada and into other countries, so that you might actually know what's going on in the world

time to grow up, "kid"

[Staubdumm]

Your poll is old. Check out the new ones: "According to the result, 42 percent of respondents approve of US efforts, down from 68 percent in 2005 and 57 percent last year." (Poll published in 2007).

[nubbs]

i thin they are wrong to suggest that obama has to speak tough on foreign policy to appease "elite interests"

it's actually very populist and democratic. the majority of americans, who are not part of any elite, like the tough talk.

they feel safer in a world where america deals with any potential threat (iran) with force.

you may disagree with this, but the fact remains most americans do agree with it, and america is a democracy

[knighthawk2277]

Why not cover the 1000's of people protesting outside of the DNC and RNC? Or better why not cover some of the martial like police activity going on outside of the DNC and RNC?

I thought The Real News was for the little man...

[knighthawk2277]

Testing...

[johndownunder]

Democrat or Republican it does not matter.What matters is both parties are controlled by the Elite.The few senators and congressmen who actually have the qualities a real president requires are prevented by the powerfull from getting a chance at the job.They dont want a peoples president.They want the corporation banks and military industrialists to come first.Their control has now created a police state and the rights of citizens to them mean nothing.

[fearonism]

One day the country will wake up and start asking

"Why didnt we vote for Ron Paul?"

Book it. The guys been right on so many things.

Crashing dollar, war in Georgia, Iraq, Home prices...EVERYTHING. Mark my words someone cant be that right for that long and not be recognized forever.

Baracks a nice dude but he's not ready..he was drafted because of popularity not because of substance. He'll do what it takes to gain power like he did in Illinois. Love you bro...but you're not the guy

[argument777]

Defending Israel... My God! to protect a neo Nazi genocidal apartheid state like that. Still can't stop being the police or "leaders" of the world, the f---ing colonial empire... Who the hell voted USA to be police or leaders of this world? Israel a democracy? Palestine:60 years of ethnic cleansing (Ilan Pappé) Please read.

[squarepusher2]

Yeah, I saw a documentary on the Gaza Strip recently. The situation there is like some bizarre cross between the concentration camps of World War II, zombie flick Land of the Dead and Mad Max.

Really awful.

[nubbs]

what's even worse is that arab countries like neighbouring egypt don't do a single thing to help these people

how quickly people forget that egypt used to claim the gaza strip as it's territory and didn't even recognize a palestinian state

[lastnymleft]

Bottom line: Obama is pushing the same globalist/CFR agenda as McCain.

[nubbs]

bottom line: americans like the globalist?CFR agenda

nader polls at 1-3% for a reason

[columbusclipper]

The CFR influences our agenda, but it does not dominate it.

[freedomcorp]

I know many blacks against Barack here in Los Angeles. They see him for the fraud he is.

[evilxxxintentions]

Ever seen a black person that doesnt like Barack ? well,besides Jessy Jackson.

[endeavor8000]

Pepe Escobar has unfortunatley turned into a one-note bore with this obsession with Brzezinski. How many times need I mention here that Brzezinski's association with the Obama campaign ended in February under Israel lobby pressure. Obama has far more dangerous characters, like Holbrooke, Albright and Dennis Ross, that one ought to speak about. Instead we get this fact free nonsense.

[squarepusher2]

But he is right. This fabricated Georgia/Russia conflict has all the hallmarks of a Brzezinski false flag; it mirrors the sneak attack by the Mujahideen on the Soviet Union, inciting the Afghan-Soviet Union war.

Look up Operation Cyclone; Brzezinski is still re-using the same script, albeit with the key players substituted.

That, and he is one of the head chairmen of the US-Azerbaijan Chamber of Commerce.

I can't see Obama as anything more than a sock puppet for Brzezinski.

[j0hnwi11iams]

Barack Obama has displayed the intellectual and emotional intelligence to respond to foreign policy challenges with both empathy and skepticism.

[acespade77]

F the democrats

[PersonalJesus348]

its not the same party Roosevelt helped define. Look at them. Corporate junkies.