[Peace-discuss] Obama's racism

[David Green]

Jenifer,
   
  Here's the prepared text (rather than what was read); it only exacerbates what was actually read.
   
  http://blogs.suntimes.com/sweet/2007/03/obamas_aipac_speech_text_as_pr.html
   
  Here's an excerpt:
   
  "To prevent this worst-case scenario, we need the United States to lead
tough-minded diplomacy. This includes direct engagement with Iran similar to the meetings we conducted with the Soviets at the height of the Cold War, laying out in clear terms our principles and interests. Tough-minded diplomacy would include real leverage through stronger sanctions. It would mean more determined U.S diplomacy at the United Nations. It would mean harnessing the collective power of our friends in Europe who are Iran’s major
trading partners. It would mean a cooperative strategy with Gulf States who supply Iran with much of the energy resources it needs. It would mean unifying those states to recognize the threat of Iran and increase pressure on Iran to suspend uranium enrichment. It would mean full implementation of U.S. sanctions laws. And over the long term, it would mean a focused
approach from us to finally end the tyranny of oil, and develop our own alternative sources of energy to drive the price of oil down."
   
  If this speech is taken at face value, Obama thinks that diplomacy is war by other means. It's a form of intimidation by ultimatum. He makes clear that all options are on the table. Anyone can claim that they want peace on their own terms, which is just inviting war. Sure, there's historical precedent for such diplomacy--at the end of wars, between the victors and the vanquished. But this isn't Appomattox. Iran isn't likely to respond to bluster. Obama will back himself into a corner with this sort of bellicose rhetoric. Then he won't want to be called weak. Then, what next?
   
  Actually, if you read the above paragraph carefully, it really has nothing to do with diplomacy with Iran whatsoever: "Tough-minded diplomacy would include real leverage through stronger sanctions. It would mean more determined U.S diplomacy at the United Nations." "Determined" is a euphemism for bullying.
   
  As an aside, I continue to be amused and dumbfounded by the notion of "the tyranny of oil." That's like Bill Gates talking about "the tyranny of computers."
   
  DG
  

Jenifer Cartwright <jencart13 at yahoo.com> wrote:
    David, 
  This speech that you quote -- designed to ensure AIPAC support, of course -- seems to say that the US should have negotiated w/ Iran about its nuclear program instead of invading Iraq. Where does Obama actually say, "We invaded the wrong country?" I'd be interested in reading that speech. Thanks.
   --Jenifer

David Green <davegreen84 at yahoo.com> wrote:
    Says Obama: "We invaded the wrong country."
   
  Every sentence of this speech is beyond belief.
  _______________
   
  "But just as we are clear-eyed about the threat, we must be clear
about the failure of today’s policy. We knew, in 2002, that Iran
supported terrorism. We knew Iran had an illicit nuclear program. We
knew Iran posed a grave threat to Israel. But instead of pursuing a
strategy to address this threat, we ignored it and instead invaded
and occupied Iraq. When I opposed the war, I warned that it would fan
the flames of extremism in the Middle East. That is precisely what
happened in Iran - the hardliners tightened their grip, and Mahmoud
Ahmadinejad was elected President in 2005. And the United States and
Israel are less secure."

   
  

 
  _______________________________________________
Peace-discuss mailing list
Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
http://lists.chambana.net/cgi-bin/listinfo/peace-discuss


  


       
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/archive/peace-discuss/attachments/20080605/2a78ecf3/attachment.html