Obama urges Israel to open Gaza borders
By Daniel Dombey in Washington and Tobias Buck in Jerusalem
Published: January 22 2009 22:07 | Last updated: January 23 2009 00:04
President Barack Obama urged Israel on Thursday to open its borders with Gaza.
The plea came in a speech that signalled the new US administration’s shift from Bush-era policy on the Middle East and the world as a whole. In a high-profile address on his second day in office, just hours after he signed an executive order to close the centre at Guantánamo Bay, Mr Obama proclaimed that the US would “actively and aggressively seek a lasting peace between Israel and the Palestinians” in the wake of this month’s Gaza war.
“The outline for a durable ceasefire is clear: Hamas must end its rocket fire: Israel will complete the withdrawal of its forces from Gaza: the US and our partners will support a credible anti-smuggling and interdiction regime, so that Hamas cannot re-arm,” the US president said.
“As part of a lasting ceasefire, Gaza’s border crossings should be open to allow the flow of aid and commerce, with an appropriate monitoring regime, with the international and Palestinian Authority participating.”
Mr Obama and Hillary Clinton, secretary of state, also announced the appointment of George Mitchell, as the US special envoy for the Arab-Israeli conflict and Richard Holbrooke, former US ambassador to the United Nations, as representative for Afghanistan-Pakistan.
The moves signalled another shift from the foreign policy of the Bush administration, which had resisted appointing a high-profile envoy for Middle East peace.
Although Condoleezza Rice, who finished her tenure as secretary of state this week, brokered a 2005 deal to allow open border crossings to Gaza, access was often shut down, with Israel citing security concerns and Hamas launching rocket attacks. The issue is set to test the authority of the new administration as it begins to grapple with the Middle East conflict.
Before Mr Obama gave his speech, an Israeli official said there would be tough conditions for any lifting of the blockade, which he linked with the release of Gilad Shalit, a soldier held captive by Hamas since 2006.
“If the opening of the passages strengthens Hamas we will not do it,” the official said.
“We will make sure that all the [humanitarian] needs of the population will be met. But we will not be able to deal with Hamas on the other side. We will not do things that give legitimacy to Hamas.”
Under its ceasefire, Hamas has given Israel until Sunday to open the borders. Much of Gaza’s civilian infrastructure has been destroyed during the three-week Israeli offensive and, without building materials and other supplies, there is little hope of rebuilding the water, sewage and power networks as well as private homes and key government buildings. But many foreign donors share Israel’s concerns that the reconstruction efforts should not be led by Hamas, or enhance the group’s legitimacy.
“Let me be clear: America is committed to Israel’s security and we will always support Israel’s right to defend itself against legitimate threats,” Mr Obama said.
But in comments referring to the Gaza conflict he added: “I was deeply concerned by the loss of Palestinian and Israeli life in recent days and by the substantial suffering and humanitarian needs in Gaza. Our hearts go out to Palestinian civilians who are in need of immediate food, clean water, and basic medical care, and who’ve faced suffocating poverty for far too long.”
He called on Arab governments to “act on” the promise of a Saudi-led 2002 Arab peace initiative by supporting the Palestinian Authority headed by President Mahmoud Abbas “taking steps towards normalising relations with Israel, and by standing up to extremism that threatens us all.”
Obama team accuses China of manipulating its currency
Graeme Wearden guardian.co.uk, Friday 23 January 2009 09.25 GMT
Barack Obama's choice as the next treasury secretary has fired the first shot in what could be a new protectionist battle between America and China.
Tim Geithner told US senators that Obama believes that China has been manipulating its currency, the yuan - an accusation that is likely to hurt relations between the two countries.
In written testimony at a confirmation hearing, Geithner said that "President Obama - backed by the conclusions of a broad range of economists - believes that China is manipulating its currency."
The former head of the Federal Bank of New York went on to tell the Senate finance committee that Obama will use "all the diplomatic avenues open to him" to push for changes in China's currency practices.
Geithner is expected to be officially confirmed in his post by the full Senate within days.
While it is an open secret that Beijing does take steps to manage the value of its currency, analysts warned that Geitner's comments risk disrupting the delicate balance between the two countries.
The yuan has strengthened against the dollar since 2005, when China stopped pegging the currency. From around eight yuan to the dollar in 2005, it was trading at 6.84 earlier today. This rise has pushed up the cost of Chinese exports overseas.
There was no official response from the Chinese government to Geithner's comments.
America is a hugely important market for China's factories, which have already suffered from the US economic slump. The flow of goods from east to west has meant China built up huge reserves of dollars and holds more US government debt, in the form of Treasury notes, than any other country.
The prospect that China might respond by selling some these assets off triggered a drop in the value of long-term US treasuries yesterday.
The term "manipulates" is politically sensitive, as under America's trade laws the US treasury must identify any country that manipulates its exchange rate to gain an advantage in international trade.
But Geithner's remarks may find favour with the American manufacturers, unions and politicians who have claimed that Chinese firms have an unfair edge over foreign competitors.
The Senate committee approved Geithner's nomination, however he must wait another week for final confirmation while Republicans continue to dig into his tax affairs. The former top US banker has admitted failing to pay self-employment taxes over a four-year period - an omission he says he has now addressed.
Obama picks George Mitchell as special envoy for Israel-Palestinian peace efforts and Richard Holbrooke for Pakistan and Afghanistan.
By Paul Richter
January 23, 2009
Reporting from Washington -- President Obama, emphasizing the use of vigorous diplomacy to settle seemingly intractable problems, named two Democratic heavyweights Thursday as administration envoys to two of the world's most troubled regions.
Obama named former Senate Majority Leader George J. Mitchell (D-Maine) as special envoy to the Middle East and former U.S. Ambassador Richard Holbrooke as special representative to Afghanistan and Pakistan.
By appearing at the State Department with his vice president, secretary of State and his new envoys, Obama underscored his departure from the Bush administration by again insisting that diplomacy take precedence over military power.
Former President Bush frequently was criticized for eschewing his State Department in international affairs and too quickly turning to military action or threats of force.
Obama, voicing a key theme of his presidency, said his administration would "use all elements of American power to protect our people and to promote our interests and ideals, starting with principled, focused and sustained American diplomacy."
Holbrooke, 67, is credited with helping forge the Dayton peace accord of 1995 that ended the war in Bosnia- Herzegovina, and is known as a hard-driving, sometimes abrasive diplomat.
Mitchell, 75, received plaudits for advancing peace in Northern Ireland as envoy there during the Clinton administration, and also headed a commission that looked for ways to end Israeli-Palestinian violence. He is considered a patient, evenhanded negotiator.
His appointment as Middle East envoy came a day after Obama placed calls to leaders in the region and pledged an early and sustained effort to seek peace, drawing another contrast with Bush, who critics said avoided the issue for most of his presidency before launching an initiative in 2007.
Mitchell's is the more politically sensitive appointment. It won praise from many sides, but some conservatives in Israel and among Israel's American supporters voiced concern that Mitchell could choose to exert new pressure on the Israelis. A report by Mitchell's commission in 2001 reportedly irritated the government of then-Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon.
Former U.S. Ambassador Samuel Lewis, who recently visited the region, said there was "a lot of nervousness in Israel" about Mitchell. Some worry about how the Obama administration will view issues such as Israeli security needs and Jewish settlements in the West Bank.
Some more dovish pro-Israel groups, including Americans for Peace Now and the Israel Policy Forum, praised the selection.
"George Mitchell is not only intimately familiar with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, he also has a proven record of peacemaking success as President Clinton's special envoy to Northern Ireland," said Debra DeLee, president of Americans for Peace Now.
Obama, who has said little about the Middle East since winning election in November, addressed diplomats and described goals for a Gaza Strip cease-fire that mirrored those of the world powers who have been trying to settle the conflict as well as of predecessors in the Bush administration.
Obama said a durable cease-fire would require an opening of Gaza's border crossings, an end to rocket fire from the Hamas militant group that controls the Palestinian enclave, a halt to Hamas' arms smuggling, and an Israeli military withdrawal.
He said the U.S. would "always support Israel's right to defend itself against legitimate threats," but also said that "just as the terror of rocket fire aimed at innocent Israelis is intolerable, so too is a future without hope for the Palestinians."
Mitchell, who also addressed the State Department audience, said his experience in Northern Ireland gave him hope for the Middle East. "I formed a conviction that there is no such thing as a conflict that can't be ended."
In the Middle East, he said, "the key is the mutual commitment of the parties and the active participation of the United States government, led by the president and the secretary of State, with the support and assistance of the many other governments and institutions that want to help."
The appointment of Holbrooke, who was assigned to focus on Afghanistan and Pakistan, reflects a growing belief that South Asia is in need of region-wide solutions that involve both countries and, many experts think, India as well.
Holbrooke said that "nobody can say that the war in Afghanistan has gone well." His goals, he said, will be to "help coordinate a clearly chaotic foreign assistance program" with help from military leaders.
"If our resources are mobilized and coordinated, we can multiply, tenfold, the effectiveness of our effort there," he said.
U.S. presidents frequently have resorted to using senior envoys in the belief that intractable conflicts need sustained, high-level effort that others in the diplomatic hierarchy can't afford to devote.
Senior political figures such as Mitchell are valuable in such roles because they have credibility with other leaders and speak for their presidents, said Lewis, the former ambassador.
The appointments came on the day that Hillary Rodham Clinton arrived at State Department headquarters to begin her job as secretary of State, and was met with an exuberant welcome.
watpie zeby to byl znak satanistow.. napewno w niektorych przypadkach jak u Berlusconiego czy Busha widac, ze takie uformowanie dloni bylo intencjonalne, natomiast wielokrotnie spotykam sie wybieraniem ich na sile przez spiskowcow, aby tylko wychwycic ten moment i dodac sobie dowodow pod wlasne teorie.. wielu ludzi metoda stop-klatek wyszukuje na sile takiego ulozenia dloni podczas np. machania co byloby pozycja zuplenie naturalna.. wedlug mnie nalezy uzywac po prostu zdrowego rozsadku, bo w przeciwnym razie to do wszystkiego mozna sobie podlozyc dowody..
Suspected U.S. Missile Strikes Kill at Least 20 in Pakistan
Attacks in Northwest Border Province Are First Since Obama's Inauguration
By Candace Rondeaux
Washington Post Foreign Service
Friday, January 23, 2009; 1:49 PM
ISLAMABAD, Pakistan, Jan. 23 -- At least 20 people were killed in northwest Pakistan near the border of Afghanistan on Friday in two suspected U.S. missile strikes, marking the first such attack in Pakistan's tribal areas since President Obama's inauguration.
A U.S. Predator drone fired three missiles at a compound about two miles from the town of Mirali in the tribal area of North Waziristan about 5:15 p.m., according to a Pakistani security official and local residents. The precision strike leveled a compound, which was owned by local tribal elder Khalil Malik, killing at least 10 suspected militants, including five foreign nationals, according to the Pakistani security official. The site of the attack is about 30 miles east of the Afghan border.
The official, who spoke on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the matter, said Malik was killed along with his brother and nephew. Authorities in North Waziristan, however, said they have been so far unable to identify any of those killed because militants immediately cordoned off the area. "I suspect a high-value target may be among the dead," the Pakistani security official said.
Jan Mohammad, a local tribesman, said Malik and his relatives probably died in the strike, which sparked panic among Malik's neighbors. Mohammad said that Malik was an influential tribal elder but that he was not known to have links with the Pakistani Taliban or other insurgent groups in the area.
There were conflicting accounts about the number of casualties in the first attack. Local residents said there were at least 11 bodies, but Pakistani television channels said 10 were killed.
The second strike occurred about three hours later near the tribal capital of Wana in South Waziristan, according to a Pakistani political official in the area. A U.S. drone fired two missiles at a compound in the small village of Gangikhel, a little less than 20 miles from the border with Afghanistan. Few details of that attack were available, but local residents said at least 10 were killed and two injured.
Maj. Gen. Athar Abbas, a spokesman for the Pakistani army, declined to comment on the strike, referring calls to the Pakistani Foreign Ministry. A spokesman for the Foreign Ministry also declined to comment.
The United States generally does not comment on or confirm whether it is behind missile attacks. White House spokesman Robert Gibbs refused to take questions about the incident at his regular briefing for reporters in Washington on Friday.
The two targeted areas are separated by about 60 miles and long stretches of rugged, ungoverned mountainous terrain. Yet they are bound together by a common allegiance among many ethnic Pashtun tribesmen to two separate insurgent networks in North and South Waziristan. In North Waziristan, hundreds of tribesman have joined a group led by Jalaluddin Haqqani, a rebel Afghan fighter, and his son, Sirajuddin Haqqani. The Haqqani Network has been linked to dozens of suicide and roadside bomb attacks on U.S., coalition and Afghan government forces in Afghanistan, including an assassination attempt last April on Afghan President Hamid Karzai. Although Jalaluddin Haqqani, who received backing from the CIA during the Soviet incursion in Afghanistan in the 1980s, is considered the spiritual head of the group, Sirajuddin is frequently credited with being head of operations.
The Haqqani Network has been battered by missile strikes in Pakistan and aggressive U.S.-led ground raids into territory controlled by the group in the eastern Afghan provinces of Khost and Paktika. Reports of arrests of suspected operatives and strikes on bomb-making compounds have increased within in the past three months with dozens killed and scores detained by coalition forces operating near the border.
In South Waziristan, a number of missile attacks have targeted compounds linked to Pakistani Taliban leader Mullah Nazir. Nazir was appointed the top Taliban commander of the Ahmedzai Wazir tribe in 2006, two years after a U.S. missile strike killed another top Taliban leader known to foster foreign fighters, Nek Mohammed.
At least 132 people have been killed in 38 suspected U.S. missile strikes inside Pakistan since August as the administration of President George W. Bush stepped up pressure on Pakistan to pursue more aggressively Taliban and al-Qaeda insurgents in the country's tribal areas.
"Obama to usłużny Murzyn na posyłki białych"
Al-Kaida wystosowała w swoich ostatnich wystąpieniach serię obelg pod adresem Baracka Obamy. Zdaniem ekspertów, jest to początek nowej kampanii propagandowej ze strony terrorystów – informuje "Washington Post" w swoim serwisie internetowym.
Obraźliwą serię rozpoczął Ajman al-Zawahiri, który określił Obamę mianem usłużnego Murzyna. "Numer 2 Al-Kaidy" podkreślił, że prezydent USA to w istocie sługa wykorzystywany na posyłki przez białych polityków z Waszyngtonu.
Po tej wypowiedzi, z ust pozostałych terrorystów, pod adresem Obamy posypały się epitety w rodzaju hipokryta, morderca niewinnych, wróg muzułmanów. Prezydent USA został uznany nawet za winnego zbrojnej interwencji Izraela w Strefie Gazy.
- Obama zabija bezlitośnie waszych braci i siostry – oświadczył rzecznik Al-Kaidy. Jak podkreślają eksperci, tego typu wypowiedzi są częścią zaplanowanej kampanii propagandowej terrorystów.
Według ekspertów, po odejściu Busha, Al-Kaida stoi przed zupełnie nowym wyzwaniem, ponieważ Obama w czasie kampanii wyborczej opowiedział się za wycofaniem sił USA z Iraku i zamknięciem więzienia w Guantanamo. Dodatkowo, sondaże przeprowadzone w krajach muzułmańskich wykazały, że Barack Obama cieszy się w nich sporą sympatią.
Tymczasem okazało się, że Obama nie zamierza zmienić całkowicie strategii Busha w wojnie z terroryzmem – ma o tym świadczyć ostatni atak rakietowy sił USA przeprowadzony na bazy terrorystów na terytorium Pakistanu. Jak przekonują komentatorzy, terroryści będą teraz starali się zrobić wszystko, by przekonać swych zwolenników, że Bush i Obama są w istocie politykami tego samego pokroju – informuje serwis www.washingtonpost.com.
Wysłany: 09:41, 30 Sty '09
Temat postu: Kim jest Obama?
Obama złamał tradycję obowiązującą od powstania Stanów Zjednoczonych mówiącą o składaniu przez żołnierzy przysięgi wojskowej na wierność Konstytucji.
Od tej pory przysięga będzie składana na wierność...prezydentowi.
Military to Pledge Oath To Obama, Not Constitution
January 29, 2009 By: Freedom Fighter
Secretary of Defense Robert Gates is extremely frustrated with orders that the White House is contemplating. According to sources at the Pentagon, including all branches of the armed forces, the Obama Administration may break with a centuries-old tradition. A spokesman for General James Cartwright, the Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, states that the Obama Administration wants to have soldiers and officers pledge a loyalty oath directly to the office of the President, and no longer to the Constitution.
“The oath to the Constitution is as old as the document itself.” the spokesman said, “At no time in American history, not even in the Civil War, did the oath change or the subject of the oath differ. It has always been to the Constitution.”
The back-and-forth between the White House and the Defense Department was expected as President George W. Bush left office. President Obama has already signed orders to close Guantanamo and to pull combat troops from Iraq. But, this, say many at the Defense Department, goes to far.
“Technically, we can’t talk about it before it becomes official policy.” the spokesman continued. “However, the Defense Department, including the Secretary, will not take this laying down. Expect a fight from the bureaucracy and the brass.”
Sources at the White House had a different point of view. In a circular distributed by White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs, the rationale for the change was made more clear.
“The President feels that the military has been too indoctrinated by the old harbingers of hate: nationalism, racism, and classism. By removing an oath to the American society, the soldiers are less likely to commit atrocities like those at Abu Ghraib.”
“We expect a lot of flak over this,” the classified memo continues. “But those that would be most against it are those looking either for attention or control.”
The time frame for the changes are unknown. However, it is more likely that the changes will be made around the July 4th holiday, in order to dampen any potential backlash. The difference in the oath will actually only be slight. The main differences will be the new phrasing. It is expected that the oath to the Constitution will be entirely phased out within two years.
niestety jest to bardzo celna analiza,"prowokacje gruzińskie", m.in. z udziałem naszego prezydenta to potwierdzają.
Polecam w temacie Afganistanu i Pakistanu książkę Wojciecha Jagielskiego "Modlitwa o Deszcz", cenna pozycja przybliżająca lokalne układy sił.
_________________ "Jeśli chcesz wiedzieć,jaka będzie przyszłość,wyobraź sobie but depczący ludzką twarz,wiecznie!"-G.Orwell,"Rok 1984"
Dziś Jones wyniuchał teledysk promujący uczestnictwo w National Guard. W pale się nie mieści, że młody rockowy zespół głosi coś takiego. Ciekawe byłoby doświadczenie, gdyby u nas powstało takie nagranie i uderzyło w patriotyzm tych autorytarnie wychowanych. Tych, co nawet na tym forum wciąż trąbią o patriotyźmie, obronie ojczyzny itp. Przeciętny Amerykanin da się w to wciągnąć bez dwóch zdań. "Obama Jugend" jest FAKTEM.
Obama chce powszechnego ubezpieczenia dla dzieci
Opublikowano: 06.02.2009 | Kategoria: Wiadomości ze świata, Zdrowie
STANY ZJEDNOCZONE. Prezydent USA Barack Obama podpisał w środę ustawę wprowadzającą ubezpieczenie zdrowotne dla wszystkich dzieci w kraju. Do tej pory bez prawa do darmowej służby zdrowia pozostawało 4 miliony dzieci.
Zmiany w zasadach korzystania z opieki zdrowotnej to realizacja obietnic złożonych przez Obamę podczas kampanii wyborczej. Reforma zostanie wprowadzona pomimo problemów nowego prezydenta z ostatecznym skompletowaniem obsady Departamentu Zdrowia - ministerstwu miał szefować Tom Daschle, ale ze względu na nie wyjaśnione do końca kwestie podatkowe związane z byłą quasi-lobbystyczną działalnością nie obejmie on urzędu.
“To dopiero pierwszy krok” - powiedział Barack Obama, podpisując znowelizowany Państwowy Program Ubezpieczenia Zdrowotnego Dzieci (SCHIP) w Pokoju Wschodnim Białego Domu. - “Ubezpieczenie zdrowotne - docelowo dla 11 milionów dzieci - w ramach tego programu to dopiero początek w moim projekcie zapewnienia opieki metycznej każdemu Amerykaninowi” - zadeklarował prezydent.
Obama przyznał, że kryzys gospodarczy pokrzyżował mu nieco plany i jest zmuszony rozłożyć realizację reformy służby zdrowia na dłuższy okres. Z drugiej jednak strony, zamówienia publiczne realizowane w ramach planu stymulacyjnego, są szansą na realizację wielu innych postulatów z czasów kampanii prezydenckiej, m.in. budowę elektrowni wykorzystujących odnawialne źródłą energii.
Republikanie są sceptyczni wobec planów Obamy. Krytykują koszt wprowadzenia programu SCHIP (32, 8 mld dolarów) i dodają, że 2,4 mln dzieci, które do tej pory korzystały z prywatnych ubezpieczeń, zaczną teraz korzystać z darmowej służby zdrowia, tym samym obciążając podatników. Program został bowiem stworzony dla tych, których rodzice zarabiają zbyt dużo, by zakwalifikować się do programu Medicaid (służba zdrowia dla najuboższych), ale mimo wszystko, nie stać ich na wykupywanie regularnych abonamentów w prywatnych towarzystwach ubezpieczeniowych.
Prezydent Obama jest jednak zdania, że każde amerykańskie dziecko powinno mieć zapewnione minimum świadczeń, dzięki którym nie będzie wykluczone już na samym starcie.
Podobne zmiany, rozszerzające prawo do darmowego korzystania z opieki medycznej przez dzieci, zostały dwukrotnie zawetowane za czasów prezydenta George’a W. Busha.
Opracowanie: Magdalena Górnicka
Na podstawie: Associated Press
Źródło: Portal Spraw Zagranicznych
Obama Seeks Russo-Iranian War
By Bruce Marshall
Warmonger Barak Obama is at it again, not only does he promote chaos in Asia with his program of bombing Pakistan , but now he is promoting a conflict between Russia and Iran .
A recent report by Jason Ditz of Antiwar.com, entitled "U.S May Trade Missile Shield for Russian Support against Iran" 2/13/09 now provides further evidential clues to the dangerous change in strategic focus, coming as the Obama Administration dutifully follow the dictates of the Brzezinski rendition of the 'Great Game'. What this means is war against Russia and China through first sewing chaos in Asia . The nature of this new threat is not explained in Ditz's posting though. It has been strategic commentator, Webster Tarpley, who first spelt out the danger in the book Obama: The Postmodern Coup-The Making of a Manchurian Candidate, in forecasts which preceded western puppet Georgia 's attack on Russia as part of this scheme.
What we have now is a change away from a neocon centered foreign policy program to the revival of the mad doctrines of Zbigniew Brzezinski, through his new protégé Obama. Change thus means the playing of the Brzezinski's Grand Chessboard which means world domination through the neutralization of Russia and China . Of course Brzezinski acolyte Obama wrote his thesis at Columbia on instituting Soviet nuclear disarmament, which comes from Brzezinski's playbook, this is still part of the goal. Evidence is the attack on Russia , by Georgia through CIA/Soros puppet Mikhail Saakashvilli. Of course Soros is one of the main money bags behind Obama as well. It is Tarpley's analysis in first identified the markings of the Obama Presidential campaign as being identical to the CIA's "people power/color revolutions' set in the former soviet sphere typified by elections in the Ukraine, Georgia and else where. This is all part of the general danger.
To put expose the danger of such 'change' into context, let us consider this quote from Vladamir Putin "Where do you get a public opinion that we should fully disarm and then, according to some theoreticians, such as Brzezinski, divide our territory into three or four states? If there is such an opinion, I would disagree with it." June 4, 2007 Putin has no delusions that many, especially on the left, in the U.S. have about Brzezinski. Putin knows history. Putin knows that it was Brzezinksi who first instigated arming the war in Afghanistan against the Russians. A sly trap set by Brzezinski, who later instigated the arming of the Muhajadeen and those elements that would become the CIA's Al Qaeda multi purpose black op.
Further background to this latest development is the fact, provided by Obama Secretary of Defence Robert Gates, is that relates the story in a speech how on Nov 19, 1974 he and Brzezinksi met with top ministers of Ayatolah Komeni to discuss arms for hostages, stating that their common enemy is Russia. SEC. GATES: I have been involved in the search for the elusive Iranian moderate for 30 years. (Laughter.) I was in the first meeting that took place between a senior U.S. government official and the leadership of the Iranian government in Algiers at the end of October, 1979. Brzezinski -- the Iranian prime minister, defense minister and foreign minister asked to meet with Brzezinski, who was in Algiers for the 25th anniversary of the Algerian Revolution and I was with him. He asked me to go as the note-taker. And he walked into that meeting and, in essence, said, "We will accept your revolution. We will recognize your country. We will recognize your government. We will sell you all the weapons that we had contracted to sell the Shah. We have a common enemy to your north. We can work together in the future." Their response was, "Give us the Shah." This as reported by the AP from the 2/29/08 address by Gates to the National Military University, confirming where arms for hostage started, and provides another angle with which to situate what Obama's ominous opportunism with Gates's speech which had plenty of emphasis on Russia as a problem.
Today we must recognize the danger that is presented to the world should Obama intervene to use the neocon's fixation on Iran , to put forth a strategy that then creates a rift between Iran and Russia . First we must understand that Russia and Iran 's relationship has not always been a friendly one, as a demonstrated by the Soviet's hegemonic attitudes. Be that as it may, presently there is cooperation between Iran and Russia as regards economic development starting with the most important issue of the building of nuclear reactors in Iran . Such development is something we should welcome rather than using as the ruse or fuse with which to push needless conflict.
We know that from the Presidential Campaign that Obama talked about talking with the Iranians. While this would seem positive, astute observers realize a monster beneath the surface. Characterized as "appeasement' such a strategy of a new relationship with Iran can be understood that Obama seeks to use, rather than destroy Iran . The use of Iran would be to perhaps use it as part of the crescent surrounding Russia . Missile defenses
The Antiwar.com report quotes that the U.S would "be able to moderate the pace of the missile defenses in Europe ". Of course those missile defenses are in reality a concerted provocation against Russia form the get go, not a defense against an Iranian attack.
What is evident is that Obama plans to slyly use Russia to fulfill his political assignments for Israel and AIPAC, while using that conflict to become the smokescreen for more sinister developments. To those who will critique my analysis as conjecture, one must consider that people have already been focused on other things such as the atrocities in the Gaza strip, to consider the preemptive atrocities of Obama against Pakistan .
It is Obama's attacks upon Pakistan , which are another part of the theater of war and destabilization of Asia which is Obama's real MO, his Modus Operandi. This is something right out of the secret playbook of Brzezinki, not the one sold at Borders. Obama is the first political figure to call for the bombing of Pakistan , summer 2007 on the campaign trail. This outrage, along with the "getting Al Qaeda" machismo he strutted on the hustings, displayed Obama's true colors as the war monger. Of course the left was too fixated upon Iraq and believed in the left gatekeeper's blowback fairy tale as regards 9/11 to really be able to call Obama into question. To even more vigorously question Obama's funding of the war was something lacking from the hysteria of those so easily taken in by the slogan, "Change". Obama of course will keep troops and mercenaries in Iraq , though with enough cover to appease try to appease the peace movement.
Now we have a very dangerous change, one which puts a politically correct facelift upon American imperialism, with plenty of left cover from a largely co-opted left opposition. Of course one does not need a Weatherman, Dick Cheney or Joe Biden to warn us about catastrophes to challenge the nation under Obama's watch, for the bomber is already occupying the White House. Provocations precede Obama's henchmen, such as Richard Holbrooke, in his visit to Ahfganistan, where suicide bombs went off. This of course is just what is on order to help justify Obama's desire for more troops in Ahfganistan, a piece of pure warmongering insanity, especially as Obama has already rejected peace talks with the Taliban.
The great fear is that another 9/11 might visit us, to which Obama would be given the green light to seek revenge, as a distraction to the fact that Obama's Wall Street dictated economic policies will not work. Blaming terrorists was Bush's solution; Obama continues this policy by continuing and expanding the wars in Asia and invoking such outrages as the Bush Administrations 'State Secrets" policy to hide its lies and dictatorial proclivities. As such we must be vigilant by developing a deeper strategic understanding of what lies behind the lies that lead to war.
Przeczytałem i powiem Wam, że nie jestem zaskoczony, dosłownie zero reakcji, nawet więcej ... jestem spokojny ... ale może dlatego że nie znam angielskiego? a tak na poważnie to na tyle co zrozumiałem (czyli prawie nic!) to potwierdzają się tylko słowa z materiału video "Człowiek stojący za Barackiem Obamą" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BdcYwg7xmIY&hl=pl