Why I'll Never Support Interventionist Warmonger Obama

[justdrew]

well what do you think he should say about Afghanistan? What? They we should just pull out immediately and let the chips fall where they may? If not that, then what alternative to putting more troops in there is there? We just announced that we were taking over from NATO there anyway, so the more troops (if we have them) are already on their way. Afghanistan is fucking chaos, karzi's government is a joke and do you really want the fucking Taliban taking over again? fuck the Taliban.

[marmot]

well what do you think he should say about Afghanistan?

When I think Afghanistan, I think narco-dollars; I think of control of the worlds greatest poppy fields, which, of course, is an issue of national security, that is, an issue of special interest for the drug cartels within the national security apparatuses.

[justdrew]

and do you think we're controlling the flow from those fields now? I've not heard much about the flow of opium from the area lately. It should be legalized.

[8bitagent]

They aren't going to let a black guy be president anyway.

Possibly, possibly. Maybe the NWO will snuff out "America's great hope", wouldnt put it past them

Or maybe Obama is exactly what the global elite need at this point, to lull people to sleep

Given these options, I am voting Obama. Fine, so he wants to send in 2 divisions to Afganistan. That sucks. But, he also wants to rebuild our crumbling cities, make use reasonably energy independant, revamp our healthcare system, etc. etc.

Life is a series of trade-offs. There's no getting around that. In this case I'll trade the potential good aspects of Obama with the terrible aspects of McCain.

I have to agree. We know the NWO has already scripted it all. We know they are already prepping a massive event that will tie back to Pakistan. We know they are engineering World War 3 for the next year or so.

Might as well vote in Obama Christ and be done with it. Besides, if we are given the illusion of a mandatory green/environment/alternative energy society, it might take some of the bitter taste of dead Muslim children
out of our mouths as Obama bin Biden continue the war machine

"Or should you believe Barack Obama who said a year ago 'we need to send two more combat battalions to Afghanistan.' <sheeple cheers> The fact of the matter is al-Qaeda and the Taleban, the people who actually attacked us on 911, they've regrouped in the mountains between Afghanistan and Pakistan, and they are plotting new attacks. And the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff has echoed Barack's call for more troops. John McCain was wrong and Barack Obama was right. <sheeple cheers>"

Translation: The NWO will stage an unthinkable, soul shattering terror attack in America that will make 9/11 look like a firecracker...and have it all lead back to Pakistan after Obama is installed as our new Christ.

I daresay Obama is even more dangerous than McCain in some respects because of the messianic Change/Hope proselytizing. With McCain, everybody knows deep in their heart they'll get a morally compromised, rich, imperialistic, militaristic member of the establishment. With Obama, I'm worried about the Martin Luther King and JFK comparisons. MLK at least was WAY more dangerous than BHO and JFK, while aggressively hawkish during the campaign and early presidency, was coming around just as he was assassinated.

Then again, what do I know? I certainly Hope (tm) Obama will turn out to be like JFK. Without the whole, you know, assassination jazz.

And therein lies the rub.

With Mccain, we know we're getting bomb bomb Iran, war with Russia,
the usual Bush neocon fart in the room.

With Obama, so many people from America to Europe and beyond will say "oh hey wow, all the evil is gone! We can rejoice and sleep now".

Meanwhile the elite stages massive terror events, create the conditions for global war, true martial law is installed...and the real fucking begins.
...of course, this could happen under Mccain as well.

JFK was a total globalist royal blueblood warhawk...til his last year. Til he got tired of it. RFK and Mcgovern I believe were America's true last chances.

[monster]

I'm no super-fan of Obama, but it is abundantly clear to me that you have four choices:

...

3 - Vote independant or write in a vote, which will make no difference to the outcome whatsoever.

Actually, if everyone did, it would make a difference.

I forget which philosopher said it (I hate philosophers) but it's something like, "act as you would want everyone else to act in the same situation."

[Eldritch]

well what do you think he should say about Afghanistan? What?

Well, he might tell the truth, for starters. He might tell the American people that the final warning President Eisenhower gave about the military-industrial complex was, in fact, not heeded—and that we've been seeing visible evidence of the consequences of this, both at home and abroad.

If Obama wants to be seen as "change we can believe in," then he needs to be that change. He hasn't been that—but he sure "talks pretty," doesn't he?

So if he doesn't get "elected," it's not the fault of the American people, for the gods' sake!—it's his own damned fault. His fault and the fault of his party—which was "elected" to leadership in Congress in 2006, and then proceeded to continue aiding and abetting the Republican minority.

There's no god-damned excuse for that.

As an "opposition party," the present Democratic Party has been an abject failure.

If the future is to be any different than the failure of the present, Obama and the Democrats have offered comparatively little evidence of it.

[ninakat]

I forget which philosopher said it (I hate philosophers) but it's something like, "act as you would want everyone else to act in the same situation."

Perhaps it was this one:

You must be the change you want to see in the world. -- Mahatma Gandhi

And it's what I'm increasingly using as a "yardstick" to measure my decisions. Voting 3rd party (Cynthia McKinney) is the only choice my conscience will allow, especially in light of all I've learned in the past 7 years.

[justdrew]

well what do you think he should say about Afghanistan? What?

Well, he might tell the truth, for starters. He might tell the American people that the final warning President Eisenhower gave about the military-industrial complex was, in fact, not heeded—and that we've been seeing visible evidence of the consequences of this, both at home and abroad.

If Obama wants to be seen as "change we can believe in," then he needs to be that change. He hasn't been that—but he sure "talks pretty," doesn't he?

So if he doesn't get "elected," it's not the fault of the American people, for the gods' sake!—it's his own damned fault. His fault and the fault of his party—which was "elected" to leadership in Congress in 2006, and then proceeded to continue aiding and abetting the Republican minority.

There's no god-damned excuse for that.

As an "opposition party," the present Democratic Party has been an abject failure.

If the future is to be any different than the failure of the present, Obama and the Democrats have offered comparatively little evidence of it.

because the fact of the matter is they HAVE NO POWER to do shit. They have a paper thin majority, not a solid super-majority. If they had a solid super-majority and they still were as they have been, then yes,m I'd be right there with you. But as it stands the executive branch simply ignores them. ignores them completely - and with such a narrow majority the few traitors in the ranks are more than enough to undermine any major thrust. However - If they weren't there we'd be at war in Iran months ago. ever think of that?

[marmot]

and do you think we're controlling the flow from those fields now? ...It should be legalized.

Actually, (and I don't want to veer too far off topic) I don't believe heroin or opium should be legalized or decriminalized. Marijuana, Yes. Anything harder would be trouble, imho; but that's all for another thread.

Yes, drew, I think control of the flow is of strategic importance. So, I can only assume Afghan's poppy fields are one of our many reason for being there.

[Eldritch]

because the fact of the matter is they HAVE NO POWER to do shit.

Really?

How "amazing" that when the Republicans had a similar "slim majority," they managed so much more.

But then, of course, they tried.

[8bitagent]

Obama is not SINGING and JOKING about incinerating innocent human beings. Regardless of what you think about his endorsement of the war in Afghanistan, he has stated his commitment to withdrawal of combat troops from Iraq. Which is very different than McCain's lackadaisical "hundred year" plan for occupation.

And unlike McCain, he has never suggested that dropping bombs on innocent human beings, or killing them with cigarettes, is fucking funny.

A few of you seem so myopic in your fixation on Obama's obvious flaws that you can't see the dramatic, clear differences between him and McInsane. Do you ONLY care about the sham "war on terror?" What about someone who wants to get an abortion? What about poor people scraping to pay for health care, or college, or bus fare to get to work? What about your own fiscal situation? What about energy policy? What about the animals and the trees? The air and water?

Well with Obama the slaughter in Afghanistan/Pakistan and in minority city abortuary clinics will continue...with Mccain, the slaughter in Iraq will continue, and up and on toward Iran and Russia

Death Death Death, here we come!

Obama is not going to invade pakistan for fucks sake, I don't care what he's said, he's not that stupid. He's throwing red meat and using it as cover to try and prevent rethug attacks and stave off the 'weak on terrorism' mantra. When push comes to shove you'll see sensible policy and reasonable actions taken to deal with the matters there. Civil society groups in Pakistan need our help pushing out the right wing nut jobs and cleaning up the ISI just like we need to do a lot of work cleaning up the CIA and ending the shadow government in this country. Under Obama they'll get that.

There is an "islamic" terrorist element - they are working hand in glove with the bush administration. and need to be hunted and killed, just like the bush criminals. Obama will see to it that the worst fucks get what they have coming.

It's clear 9/11 was an inside job, just in that Bush's close buddies in Saudi Arabia and Pakistan funded most of the money and helped guide it all(not withstanding rogue elements of CIA related liasons)

So in a way, Pakistan is guilty of 9/11 as is Saudi Arabia, and they are bad guys. And I BET the NWO right now is engineering an al Qaeda coup of Pakistan. Which means the majority of Pakistanis, who are moderate will lose. And the NWO will get their WW3.

"Islamic terrorism" is a TOOL of the Satanic new world order, and you can bet they will engineer the next 9/11 to come right out of Warzaristan and make Pakistan center stage for a great crisis.

Id lovvve to see a free and Democratic Pakistan, free of NWO controlled al Qaeda/Taliban and right wing puppets. Fat chance of that happening tho

maybe you don't want totally incompetent MF'ers to shoot you with killing drugs after all.

Ah! my teethy friend, I advocate for a humane execution... give me something like morphine and valium first before I'm injected with poison.

Firing squad is the only humane execution. I am diametrically opposed to the chair, lethal injection, ect. If they are going to execute, then firing squad should be the only way. Otherwise for the most part I am pro life(that means fervently anti war in my view)

[justdrew]

and do you think we're controlling the flow from those fields now? ...It should be legalized.

Actually, (and I don't want to veer too far off topic) I don't believe heroin or opium should be legalized or decriminalized. Marijuana, Yes. Anything harder would be trouble, imho; but that's all for another thread.

Yes, drew, I think control of the flow is of strategic importance. So, I can only assume Afghan's poppy fields are one of our many reason for being there.

I mean the growth and sale in that region should be legal, the buyer would be the UN or some other body who would then destroy or find some useful purpose for the crop. The activities have to be taken out of the shadows.

[justdrew]

because the fact of the matter is they HAVE NO POWER to do shit.

Really?

How "amazing" that when the Republicans had a similar "slim majority," they managed so much more.

But then, of course, they tried.

they also had 24x7 media support millions of lobotomized drones listening to rush limpdick all day long and a filibuster threat that they knew they could sustain. We can't sustain most any filibuster because the party is so infiltrated with liebermans and such.

[compared2what?]

I really can't believe all of you care so much about making me vote for someone I really don't want to support.

If they can get YOU to do it, Elfismiles, maybe they'll be able to shore up their own flagging confidence.

Flagging confidence?

Actually, false hope disguised as pragmatism.

Honey, do my arguments really come across like that? Because I'm honestly not very hopeful. owing to how pathetically limited any pragmatically attainable advantage might be gained by voting for Obama actually is.

Feedback appreciated, since I should really consider firing my inner debate coach if I'm coming across as motivated by the need to protect my falsely hopes and hence my ego.

You yourself were not in my thoughts when I wrote that.

But, generally speaking, I think there is a lot of "false hope disguised as pragmatism" going on in this election cycle—especially whenever the utilitarian argument about supporting the "lesser of two evils" is applied to a discussion.

I agree. If Obama's acceptance speech actually is a repetition of John Belushi's "Was it over when the German's bombed Pearl Harbor?" scene*** rather than its non-comedy equivalent, I might have some pragmatic basis for hope. Also, it would be funny! He should do it! If it's anything less radical than that, my position is that what sadly few things are genuinely at stake are worth debating seriously on their own terms. But that's just my position, not my whole idealogical raison d'etre.

*** I just referenced Animal House on another thread, which is what reminded me of the existence of this reference. But a quick Google to check phrasing reveals it's almost a cliche to cite it in service of a lost cause among the serious punditocracy. Such silly geese.

[8bitagent]

well what do you think he should say about Afghanistan? What?

Well, he might tell the truth, for starters. He might tell the American people that the final warning President Eisenhower gave about the military-industrial complex was, in fact, not heeded—and that we've been seeing visible evidence of the consequences of this, both at home and abroad.

Im willing to give Obama a chance and see where this is all going. Like a good novel. So Im with you Eldritch
But damn if I don't really despise Biden

well what do you think he should say about Afghanistan? What? They we should just pull out immediately and let the chips fall where they may? If not that, then what alternative to putting more troops in there is there? We just announced that we were taking over from NATO there anyway, so the more troops (if we have them) are already on their way. Afghanistan is fucking chaos, karzi's government is a joke and do you really want the fucking Taliban taking over again? fuck the Taliban.

Well fuck Carter's Brzezinski for creating Taliban/al Qaeda, and fuck Clinton's CIA for bringing the Taliban to power and using al Qaeda in the Bosnian/Kosovo conflict.

Oh and fuck Bush for having the Taliban over to the white house and giving them 43 million a few months before 9/11. Or Houston energy doing pipeline deals.

Hell America PAYS for the Taliban vis-a-vis the 12 billion we have given to Pakistan since 9/11...Pakistani ISI, who is 100% proven to be funding the Taliban.