Obama orders air strikes in Pakistan--killing 18

[Pawn Power]

So the honeymoon is over. On his fourth day in office, the new President has ordered airs strikes on villages in the "tribal" area of Pakistan, killing at least 18 people.

Article (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jan/24/pakistan-barack-obama-air-strike)

Yes, this is no surprise, and shouldn't be for anyone since he said he would continue the bloody military campaign in Afghanistan/Pakistan. Just don't tell the US anti-war "movement" they were wrong in voting for him. :glare:

Aslo, Obama Hot Sauce (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/gallery/2009/jan/23/usa-barackobama?picture=342240259)!

[ZeroNowhere]

As I turn away from a life so grey
Where have all the flowers gone?
Just what went wrong?

Innocence, insanity, irony
Stone cold reality
Oh lord, come and save me

Do you think we're forever?

I've been in tears
Hope has died in me
But now I'm here, I don't wish to leave

Trapped in time
A mirage of hope and change
A swirling mass, no mercy now
If the truth hurts prepare for pain

Anathema can apparently rival Nostradamus. I mean, NOOOSTRADAMUS.

[Dosoftei]

Yes i agree with all you:thumbup:

[Philosophical Materialist]

The Democratic left shouldn't be surprised as every US Democratic President since World War 2 has done this sort of thing.

Exchanging the imperialist GOP for the imperialist Democrats won't change much except that the imperialist foreign policy is more nuanced.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

And so it continues...

[communistsecular]

Obama used the race card to win over the presidential election and those people who took him as a messiah to bring about humanity should now understand the US foreign policy is under the control of those Jewish bankers and none, be it Obama or anyone, can get rid of the system. Also it has again proved that the American nation state and its people were hick-jacked by the evil neocon zionists in a way, that a mere change in so-called presidential election cant put things in a right order. Thus however the anti-war politics was there, America's foreign policy is handicapped by the zionist forces which will decide the fate of the Muslim world and America, if there is no strong equal resistance in terms of military might and ideology.

[Kassad]

Can't wait to show this one to my friends. The military machine carries on.

[Rjevan]

Can't wait to show this one to my friends.
That makes two of us. I'd love to hear what the "Obama will lead us into an age of peace and freedom!"-people say now. Probably: "Oh, come on, that can happen to anyone. This doesn't mean anything."

[ZeroNowhere]

No, it's fine because it's to kill terrorists. Because that doesn't sound like Bush at all.

[Hit The North]

Another murderer in the White House. :cursing:

[JimmyJazz]

The crazy thing is that no one in the mainstream will get worked up because it's "only" 18 people, and "surely the Taliban regularly rounded up groups bigger than that for execution right"? Overall, of course, the civilian deaths in Afghanistan far outnumber the civilian deaths on 9/11/01. Actually they outnumbered them within the first six months (http://cursor.org/stories/civilian_deaths.htm) of the war.

[Psy]

Obama used the race card to win over the presidential election and those people who took him as a messiah to bring about humanity should now understand the US foreign policy is under the control of those Jewish bankers and none, be it Obama or anyone, can get rid of the system.

Jewish bankers???

Capitalism is not a Jewish conspiracy.

[communistsecular]

Jewish bankers???

Capitalism is not a Jewish conspiracy.

Then what about the owners of the Federal Banking system and all other financial organizations? Why America is not opposing Israel's brutal forces in Palestine, when, except another hindu zionist south Asian country India, almost all countries of the world are condemning Israel's war on terror policies?

[L.J.Solidarity]

Could you please stop posting this anti-semitic nonsense? It reminds me of the nazi way of portraying all the effects of capitalism and generally everything bad as caused by some "jewish/zionist conspiracy". And what is "hindu zionist" supposed to mean?

[Mindtoaster]

You forgot to mention Obama's promises of change in the list of casualties


Then what about the owners of the Federal Banking system and all other financial organizations? Why America is not opposing Israel's brutal forces in Palestine, when, except another hindu zionist south Asian country India, almost all countries of the world are condemning Israel's war on terror policies?

Because America's capitalists have investments in the region. In fact most of the ruling classes of the countries you seem to classify as "condemning" Israel have actually remained silent on the issue as they also have investments in the region.

Its just America where a majority of the citizenry supports Israel, and that appears to actually be changing. Even liberals are starting to get pissed off.

I fail to see where Jewish bankers fit into all this. Perhaps you're referring to the Jewish-American lobby, they are one of the most powerful lobbies in the US, but they don't exactly control the country. You seem to have a bit of racist/reactionary rhetoric ingrained in your opinions, I would advise you work on that before you wind up banned from RevLeft

[communistsecular]

Could you please stop posting this anti-semitic nonsense? It reminds me of the nazi way of portraying all the effects of capitalism and generally everything bad as caused by some "jewish/zionist conspiracy". And what is "hindu zionist" supposed to mean?

No comrade, this is not anti-semitic nonsense, the way you are thinking points to the brainwashing strategy the zionists adopted long ago and we have been victimized by the strategy because what we see is not what it is and we are shown all the things the zionists want us to see. I am not supporting Hitler, but before blaming Hitler, the crazy racist killer, we need to remember what happened in 1919 and also what Jews used to do before the rise of Hitler, since one way blaming is not an acceptable process. Look, I am not talking about those good Jewish people in terms of racism, Jewish anarchists are there for example. I am talking about the Zionists who have built the columns of capitalism, like banking, media and other institutions.

The marriage between Israel's Mossad and Raw (hindu India's secret service) is the threat to the world, because both Israel and India do have the blueprints for a greater Israel and Akhand Bharata (greater India) respectively which will only be gained through an aggressive policy by invasion. Well, people can hardly recognize them because both are cleverly masked.

[communistsecular]

You forgot to mention Obama's promises of change in the list of casualties
Perhaps you're referring to the Jewish-American lobby, they are one of the most powerful lobbies in the US, but they don't exactly control the country.

Yes the Jewish-American lobby, and next to that, the Indian-American lobby, I was referring to. Now, actually these two lobbies are controlling not only America, but also the geo-political situations across the globe. And the American population is living on debt, in fact the nation state is living on debt. Now to whom they are supposed to pay, we need to understand.

I am not racist, I am talking about the zionist ideologues not the Jewish people, I repeat.

[skki]

There has never been a more obvious troll.

[#FF0000]

Yes the Jewish-American lobby, and next to that, the Indian-American lobby, I was referring to. Now, actually these two lobbies are controlling not only America, but also the geo-political situations across the globe.

How?

I'm looking for an article from the CWI that was posted awhile back on this topic and did a good job of putting things in perspective...

[Hit The North]

There has never been a more obvious troll.

skki, I agree with you - banned.

[butterfly]

That was a terribly short honeymoon period.


Can't wait to show this one to my friends. The military machine carries on.

Indeed.

[ls]

Was obvious. (http://google.com/search?q=cache:obePIgTg52sJ:www.reuters.com/article/domesticNews/idUSN0132206420070801+http://www.reuters.com/article/domesticNews/idUSN0132206420070801)

[Mindtoaster]

Has the media even been reporting on this in the US...?

I get a feeling the liberals will just keep their fingers in their ears, as always

[butterfly]

Nothing on commercial media down here. Aren't you in the US?

[Jet]

So the honeymoon is over. On his fourth day in office, the new President has ordered airs strikes on villages in the "tribal" area of Pakistan, killing at least 18 people.


Yes, this is no surprise, and shouldn't be for anyone since he said he would continue the bloody military campaign in Afghanistan/Pakistan. Just don't tell the US anti-war "movement" they were wrong in voting for him. :glare:

Aslo, !


WOW that's fast indeed, They changed the President but they kept the "core" of the system, so no wonder he did that.

[Rjevan]

Nothing on commercial media down here.
Same here in Germany. It wasn't mentioned at all.

[Mindtoaster]

Nothing on commercial media down here. Aren't you in the US?

I stopped watching CNN and such long ago. I usually go to BBC or Al Jazeera

[Comrade B]

I did not fool myself into thinking that Obama was a savior for the left, but I expected just a little bit of improvement. He begins his presidency with making a hollow statement about Guantanamo which has yet to be acted upon, and then once the words are done, he continues the bombings that his predecessor loved so much.


Can't wait to show this one to my friends. The military machine carries on.
I am ashamed to have even expected the small amount of change from him I previously showed. I believed his words about Pakistan were mere empty threats in an attempt to 'look tough' to the American people.
This is disgusting.
When I hear about these things I wonder what the US would be saying if an apartment building was blown up killing 18 people...

[Comrade B]

(http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=777704801&ref=nf)
******************************** has found a beautiful buzz kill for die hard Obama supporters: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jan/24/pakistan-barack-obama-air-strike (http://www.facebook.com/l.php?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.guardian.co.uk%2Fworld%2F 2009%2Fjan%2F24%2Fpakistan-barack-obama-air-strike&h=913126afca17fca92f19b6eb542c371b). 2 seconds ago - Comment


http://profile.ak.facebook.com/v222/1161/58/q777704801_2725.jpg (http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=777704801)
******************************** at 3:18pm January 25
Do not take my posting of this the wrong way, I still prefer him to McCain, but I am sure that those of you on the left can't REALLY support this.
Please check out the PSL with real consideration for your next election.
http://www.pslweb.org/site/PageServer




Facebook - a lovely, quick way to make your friends angry at you

[iraqnevercalledmenigger]

This was basically a campaign promise of Obama. He made it clear that he would take a harder line on Pakistan.

[Comrade B]

You can hardly call this a harder line, Bush has been doing the same thing. The problem that I have is not that he is worse, but that his very much proving to be the same.

[iraqnevercalledmenigger]

*Harder than his rivals at the time were proposing.

[Blackscare]

Well, he DID mention taking a hard line against pakistan while running for office. Hell, he even mentioned invading pakistan.

<---------Not surprised.

[x359594]

No, it's fine because it's to kill terrorists. Because that doesn't sound like Bush at all.

The figure I read at AntiWar.com was 22, 4 of them children. That does sound like Bush.

[Comrade B]

McCain had a kinder stance on Pakistan, but it was definitely made up by the differing of his and Obama's stances on Iran and Iraq.

[deLarge]

And tomorrow I have to go back to a liberal arts college, filled with people wearing obama pins.. At least I have more ammo to smear this into their faces.

Maybe I should seek out the Nader/Kucinich fans and start an Obama-smearing committee :rolleyes:

[Pawn Power]

An update. 22 people died in this attack, three of them were children.

[Pogue]

In the words of many a pokemon game

Rain continues to fall.

[ZeroNowhere]

An update. 22 people died in this attack, three of them were children.
At least 4, actually, IIRC.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Check this out too, written by a friend of mine:


Obama the imperialist

Richard Seymour

The Guardian, Tuesday 27 January 2009


Change? In foreign policy, hardly. The new president is in the classic liberal interventionist mould

The first Democratic president in the modern era to be elected on an anti-war ticket is also, to the relief of neocons and the liberal belligerati, a hawk. Committed to escalation in Afghanistan, his foreign policy selections also indicate bellicosity towards Sudan and Iran. During his first week in office he sanctioned two missile attacks in Pakistan, killing 22 people, including women and children. And his stance on Gaza is remarkably close to that of the outgoing administration. The question now is how Obama will convince his supporters to back that stance. Bush could rely on a core constituency whose commitment to peace and human rights is, at the very least, questionable. Obama has no such luxury. In making his case, he will need the support of those "liberal hawks" who gave Bush such vocal support.

It is tempting to dismiss the "pro-war left" as a congeries of discredited left-wing apostates and Nato liberals. Their artless euphemisms for bloody conquest seem especially redundant in light of over a million Iraqi deaths. Yet their arguments, ranging from a paternalistic defence of "humanitarian intervention" to the championing of "western values", have their origins in a tradition of liberal imperialism whose durability advises against hasty dismissal. In every country whose rulers have opted for empire, there has developed among the intellectual classes a powerful pro-imperial consensus, with liberals and leftwingers its most vociferous defenders.

Liberal imperialists have resisted explicitly racist arguments for domination, instead justifying empire as a humane venture delivering progress. Even so, implicit in such a stance was the belief that other peoples were inferior. Just as John Stuart Mill contended that despotism was a "legitimate mode of government in dealing with the barbarians" provided "the end be their improvement", so the Fabians contended that self-government for "native races" was "as useless to them as a dynamo to a Caribbean". Intellectuals of the Second International such as Eduard Bernstein regarded the colonised as incapable of self-government. For many liberals and socialists of this era, the only disagreement was over whether the natives could attain the disciplined state necessary to run their own affairs. Indigenous resistance, moreover, was interpreted as "native fanaticism", to be overcome with European tuition.

The current liberal imperialists are not replicas of their 19th-century antecedents. Cold war priorities, including the need to incorporate elements of the left into an anti-communist front, transformed the culture of empire. If the "anti-totalitarian" left supported US expansionism, they often did so under the mantle of anti-colonialism. Decolonisation and the civil rights struggle meant explicit racism had to be dispensed with in arguments for military intervention.

This was a slow process. Both the Eisenhower and Kennedy administrations were terrified of "premature independence" for colonised nations. The state department asserted that "backward societies" required authoritarianism to prepare them for modernity. Irving Kristol, a cold war liberal who became the "godfather of neoconservatism", justified the Vietnam war in part by asserting that the country was "barely capable of decent self-government under the very best of conditions", and thus needed its US-imposed dictatorship. Nonetheless, such arguments today tend to be rehearsed only on the wilder shores of the neoconservative right.

Since the collapse of the Soviet Union, however, some paternalistic mainstays of liberal imperialism have been reinvented under the impress of "humanitarian intervention". Just as Victorian humanitarians saw the empire as the appropriate tool for saving the oppressed, so the 1990s saw demands for the US military to deliver Somalians, Bosnians and Kosovans from their tormentors - notwithstanding the fact that US intervention played a destructive role in each case.

The agency of the oppressed themselves is largely absent from this perspective. And, as New York University's Stephen Holmes pointed out: "By denouncing the United States primarily for standing by when atrocity abroad occurs, these well-meaning liberals have helped re-popularise the idea of America as a potentially benign imperial power."

The catastrophe in Iraq has produced a reaction against humanitarian imperialism even from former interventionists like David Rieff, who has warned against the "rebirth of imperialism with human rights as its moral warrant". Even so, among liberal intellectuals there is a broad coalition favouring intervention into Darfur, though humanitarian organisations have opposed the idea.

And there is little resistance to the escalation in Afghanistan, where "native fanaticism" is once more the enemy. Liberal imperialism is in rude health: it is its victims who are in mortal peril.

• Richard Seymour is the author of The Liberal Defence of Murder [email protected]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/jan/27/obama-white-house-foreign-policy?commentpage=4&commentposted=1

It is also worth following the discussion, where Richard responds to several criticisms.