Log in

View Full Version : Obama--conventional US imperialist & interventionist



sixdollarchampagne
30th July 2008, 03:06
Barack Obama as President would be a conventional US imperialist and military interventionist. We know this from an article Senator Obama wrote for the July-August 2007 issue of the establishment magazine Foreign Affairs. In his article, the Democratic presidential hopeful discloses his view that

--the US must maintain its "clear and strong commitment to Israel's
security" as its "starting point" in the Middle East, helping Israel in
"isolating those who seek conflict and instability"

--US diplomacy must "raise the cost for Iran of continuing its nuclear program by applying tougher sanctions," and "the world must work to stop Iran" in its nuclear undertakings. Obama as President would seek to "isolate Iran"

--Obama thinks the US should "become better prepared to put boots on the ground" through military interventions overseas, adding "65,000 soldiers to the Army and 27,000 Marines"

--Obama would "not hesitate to use force, unilaterally if necessary,
to protect the American people or our vital interests"

--Obama wants "a strong international coalition to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons and eliminate North Korea's nuclear weapons program," and he declares, "In confronting these threats, I will not take the military option off the table"

--Obama believes "Success in Afghanistan is still possible" through
decisive action and building "a twenty-first century military"

In his article, Obama twice mentions the Cold War positively and
invokes the interventionists Truman and Kennedy. Combining naïveté with illusion, Obama looks back fondly to the classic age of US world hegemony:

"It was not all that long ago that farmers in Venezuela and Indonesia welcomed American doctors to their villages and hung pictures of JFK on their living room walls, when millions, like my father, waited every day for a letter in the mail that would grant them the privilege to come to America to study, work, live, or just be free. We can be this America again. This is our moment to renew the trust and faith of our people -- and all people -- in an America that battles immediate evils, promotes an ultimate good, and leads the world once more."

* * *

It really needs to be added that people throughout Latin America and elsewhere would seriously disagree with Obama's claim that being dominated by the US "promotes an ultimate good."

Aurelia
30th July 2008, 03:21
Well he is following in the long line of Democratic Presidents that were imperialist, he has a legacy to uphold.:(

gla22
30th July 2008, 03:48
yeah. i didn't expect anything promising from Obama. Every action of his makes an Obama presidency look more dismal.

Lost In Translation
30th July 2008, 04:34
Well he is following in the long line of Democratic Presidents that were imperialist, he has a legacy to uphold.:(
Well, took you long enough to figure out :)

Winter
30th July 2008, 05:13
Obama is the biggest sham ever. "Change" is all he can talk about. Yet what does he mean? "Hey, let's *change* countries to attack!" Oh yeah, that's great.

American imperialism will continue so long as the system remains.

Aurelia
30th July 2008, 08:30
Obama is the biggest sham ever. "Change" is all he can talk about. Yet what does he mean? "Hey, let's *change* countries to attack!" Oh yeah, that's great.

American imperialism will continue so long as the system remains.
Obama is simply the result of the bourgeois system correcting itself from it's former excesses. The bourgeois state has become vurnerable because of the flagrant excesses of capitalism allowed by the GWB administration, which has put the whole system into shame with the people.

Obama is simply a matter of curbing some of the excesses (if only in rhetoric) of the losses and decay incurred by private capital on the working class, in order to preserve the existing basis of bourgeois property.

He may not change anything to the current capitalist system, (as what happened with the rise of welfare capitalism) but having a token black liberal in office may calm peoples fears even if society decays even MORE under his government.

Winter
30th July 2008, 08:50
Obama is simply the result of the bourgeois system correcting itself from it's former excesses. The bourgeois state has become vurnerable because of the flagrant excesses of capitalism allowed by the GWB administration, which has put the whole system into shame with the people.

Obama is simply a matter of curbing some of the excesses (if only in rhetoric) of the losses and decay incurred by private capital on the working class, in order to preserve the existing basis of bourgeois property.

He may not change anything to the current capitalist system, (as what happened with the rise of welfare capitalism) but having a token black liberal in office may calm peoples fears even if society decays even MORE under his government.

Very well said!

President
30th July 2008, 09:12
He will provide Americans with the false notion that race is no longer an issue in America. "Hey, our president is black... There is no prejudice, descrimination, institutional racism, there is racial harmony" which couldn't be farther than the truth. So I think he would have overall negative effects on Black America, and do nothing for their struggle.

Psy
2nd August 2008, 16:49
Well he is following in the long line of Democratic Presidents that were imperialist, he has a legacy to uphold.:(
So how much will Obama expand the war?

Dimentio
2nd August 2008, 17:07
No idea, most likely he is an imperialist, but you should not judge a decision-maker after her rhetoric but after what she is doing. Remember, Chàvez was elected on a liberal platform in 1998.

I mean, if Nazi Germany had won the war in the 40;s, even politicians who dislike the system and want to change it must talk badly about other races than whites, for example.

Psy
2nd August 2008, 17:15
No idea, most likely he is an imperialist, but you should not judge a decision-maker after her rhetoric but after what she is doing. Remember, Chàvez was elected on a liberal platform in 1998.

I mean, if Nazi Germany had won the war in the 40;s, even politicians who dislike the system and want to change it must talk badly about other races than whites, for example.

There is a serious question for the left, since you still have Brzezinski saying the US should eventually occupy Russia and China (after they are weakened) to bring total world domination of the US empire.

BIG BROTHER
3rd August 2008, 01:52
Well they don't call obama the next jfk for nothing, they are both imperialist bastards, who use their carisma to put a nice face on imperialism.