some good questions and answers

quote:

---

JG: Do you think that justice is still on Israel’s side?

BO: I think that the idea of a secure Jewish state is a fundamentally just idea, and a necessary idea, given not only world history but the active existence of anti-Semitism, the potential vulnerability that the Jewish people could still experience. I know that that there are those who would argue that in some ways America has become a safe refuge for the Jewish people, but if you’ve gone through the Holocaust, then that does not offer the same sense of confidence and security as the idea that the Jewish people can take care of themselves no matter what happens. That makes it a fundamentally just idea.

That does not mean that I would agree with every action of the state of Israel, because it’s a government and it has politicians, and as a politician myself I am deeply mindful that we are imperfect creatures and don’t always act with justice uppermost on our minds. But the fundamental premise of Israel and the need to preserve a Jewish state that is secure is, I think, a just idea and one that should be supported here in the United States and around the world.

---

quote:

---

JG: What do you make of Jimmy Carter’s suggestion that Israel resembles an apartheid state?

BO: I strongly reject the characterization. Israel is a vibrant democracy, the only one in the Middle East, and there’s no doubt that Israel and the Palestinians have tough issues to work out to get to the goal of two states living side by side in peace and security, but injecting a term like apartheid into the discussion doesn’t advance that goal. It’s emotionally loaded, historically inaccurate, and it’s not what I believe.

---

AM magazine

[Edited thread title to reflect the subject of the thread.]

[ 06 June 2008: Message edited by: Michelle ]

In fact the "organized" Jewish Community in the US overwhelmingly supports Hillary not Obama.

So yes, that IS the very point. He's doing what he needs to do now.

[ 13 May 2008: Message edited by: Michelle ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by johnpauljones:
In fact the "organized" Jewish Community in the US overwhelmingly supports Hillary not Obama.

---

What do you mean by "organized" ... union members???

Clinton and Obama's support among Jews is very close to equal:

quote:

---

A new poll shows that Barack Obama would do nearly as well as Hillary Clinton among Jewish voters in November.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by johnpauljones:
I wonder how they poll Jewish democrats?

Go through the list of registered dems and only call the Cohen's Levy's Schwartz's etc?

---

Germany found us. I'm sure the U.S. has its methods also.

ETA: On a less sinister note, here is Gallup's own explanation of the poll and the methodology. It doesn't fully answer your question, but they do list an email address.

[ 13 May 2008: Message edited by: unionist ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by unionist:
Germany found us. I'm sure the U.S. has its methods also.

---

I was going by this and assumed that it was a gallop poll for only Jewish voters. therefore it was 800 people not 5000

quote:

---

The poll, released by Gallup a day after Obama's strong performances in Indiana and North Carolina, shows Clinton winning 50 percent to 43 percent among Jewish Democrats. The findings were based on aggregate tracking from April 1-30, including interviews with close to 800 Jewish voters and nearly 600 Jewish Democratic voters.

---

Stop posting and visit the link for *******'s sake!!!

quote:

---

These results are based on monthly aggregates of Gallup Poll Daily tracking interviews for March 2008 and April 2008.

The March 2008 aggregate is based on interviews conducted March 1-31, 2008. It includes interviews with 24,290 voters, 632 Jewish voters, 12,045 Democratic voters, and 449 Jewish Democratic voters.

The April 2008 aggregate is based on interviews conducted April 1-30, 2008. It includes interviews with 30,311 voters, 790 Jewish voters, 14,989 Democratic voters, and 588 Jewish Democratic voters.

---

[ 13 May 2008: Message edited by: unionist ]

Ok you posted your gallop link too slow !!!!!!!!!!!!!

quote:

---

Survey Methods

These results are based on monthly aggregates of Gallup Poll Daily tracking interviews for March 2008 and April 2008.

The March 2008 aggregate is based on interviews conducted March 1-31, 2008. It includes interviews with 24,290 voters, 632 Jewish voters, 12,045 Democratic voters, and 449 Jewish Democratic voters.

The April 2008 aggregate is based on interviews conducted April 1-30, 2008. It includes interviews with 30,311 voters, 790 Jewish voters, 14,989 Democratic voters, and 588 Jewish Democratic voters.

In addition to sampling error, question wording and practical difficulties in conducting surveys can introduce error or bias into the findings of public opinion polls.

---

quote:

---

For all the hope and excitement Obama's candidacy is generating, some of his field workers, phone-bank volunteers and campaign surrogates are encountering a raw racism and hostility that have gone largely unnoticed -- and unreported -- this election season. Doors have been slammed in their faces. They've been called racially derogatory names (including the white volunteers). And they've endured malicious rants and ugly stereotyping from people who can't fathom that the senator from Illinois could become the first African American president.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doug:
Racist incidents give some Obama campaigners pause

Ouch. It must really hurt to have campaigning experiences like that.

---

They sound strangely like Reform/Alliance supporters: "No more prime ministers from Quebec!"

quote:

---

Just another US politician suckholing AIPAC with pro-Occupation pandering.
What else is new? Yawn.

---

Yes, it is a very good thing that you are able to associate Obama with AIPAC.

Or is he suckholing Hamas?

quote:

---

We like Mr. Obama, and we hope that he will win the elections," Ahmed Yousuf, Hamas' top political adviser in the Gaza Strip, said in an exclusive interview with WND and with the John Batchelor Show on WABC Radio in New York.

"I hope Mr. Obama and the Democrats will change the political discourse. ... I do believe [Obama] is like John Kennedy, a great man with a great principal. And he has a vision to change America to make it in a position to lead the world community, but not with humiliation and arrogance

---

(The video of the Hamas spokesperson is halfway into the youtube segment)

quote:

---

Because "AIPAC baiting" is allowed on babble.

---

What the hell is AIPAC baiting???

Red baiting is not allowed on Babble. Antisemitism is not allowed on Babble.

You are allowed to criticize a specific Communist party on Babble. One would think you are therefore allowed to criticize AIPAC on Babble.

quote:

---

And you're not going to be the President of the United States unless you're an AIPAC suckhole.

---

Would that be similar to saying that "the Jews control the United States"?

As I posted elsewhere, a Hamas spokesman has been quoted as saying that Hamas supports Obama.

And no, that wouldn't be similar to saying that the Jews control the United States unless you're a moron who has a hard time reading for comprehension.

quote:

---

Originally posted by jeff house:

Would that be similar to saying that "the Jews control the United States"?

---

No, it's similar to saying that rich and powerful people control the United States.

Your question, however, is similar to saying that the Jews are responsible for Israel's crimes.

quote:

---

Would that be similar to saying that "the Jews control the United States"?

---

quote:

---

"Any agreement with the Palestinian people must preserve Israel's identity as a Jewish state, with secure, recognized and defensible borders," the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee said at the annual conference of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, an influential pro-Israel lobbying group.

"Jerusalem will remain the capital of Israel, and it must remain undivided," Obama said.

The Palestinians also want Jerusalem to be the capital of their own country. United States policy has long been intentionally vague on the status of Jerusalem. The U.S. Embassy in Israel is in Tel Aviv, not Jerusalem.

---

quote:

---

Turning his attention to Iran, Mr Obama said the US-led war in Iraq had emboldened the Islamic state, which posed a real, grave danger.

"My goal will be to eliminate this threat," he said.

Mr Obama said "aggressive, principled diplomacy" was needed to deal with Tehran but added that he would "always keep the threat of military action on the table to defend our security and our ally Israel".

---

I believe the difference between Obama and McCain is that Obama would attack Iran after aggressive diplomacy with Iran, while McCain would attack Iran after aggressive diplomacy with other countries.

Source.

[ 04 June 2008: Message edited by: unionist ]

George Bush presented Iran with his balls. Or, better said, he presented Iran with the balls of 150,000 American troops (poetic licence-I know there are female soldiers!).

Iran can easily obstruct any withdrawal of American troops from Iraq, using its influence to heighten tensions or reduce them as it suits it.

Consequently, Obama says he'll talk with them, because he wants American troops out of Iraq. McCain won't, because he doesn't.

quote:

---

George Bush presented Iran with his balls. Or, better said, he presented Iran with the balls of 150,000 American troops (poetic licence-I know there are female soldiers!).

---

Try rereading the post and see if you can glean from it that Obama won't attack Iran because Bush sent some sacrificial lambs to Iraq to be held.

quote:

---

Originally posted by jeff house:
Iran can easily obstruct any withdrawal of American troops from Iraq, using its influence to heighten tensions or reduce them as it suits it.

---

I had to read this a couple of times. You're demonizing Iran the way George W. Bush does? You think Iran is the mastermind of some terror network the way the Israeli government suggests?

All the phoney lying pretexts the U.S. used to invade and continue to occupy Iraq (WMD, liberation from Saddam Hussein, Al Qaeda and 9-11), you have now added IRAN???

Wow, well done, nice touch.

quote:

---

Originally posted by jeff house:
I don't believe Obama will attack Iran.

---

Iran has huge power in Iraq, as any dummy knows.

It also has huge potential power in Afghanistan, and could obstruct a settlement there.

Now it is an open question whether Iran might use its power in Iraq to prevent an attack on it by the United States. I think it would, and that's what my post says.

quote:

---

Originally posted by jeff house:
You are a long-time sycophant for the Iranian regime. Dozens of your posts demonstrate this.
So maybe those who want to think seriously about foreign policy should just listen to your analysis of "the Great Satan." Not me though. I don't debate at subterranean levels.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by jeff house:
Iran has huge power in Iraq, as any dummy knows.

---

Who's the other dummy who knows this?

quote:

---

It also has huge potential power in Afghanistan, and could obstruct a settlement there.

---

Good thing Canada has soldiers there fighting Iran.

quote:

---

You are a long-time sycophant for the Iranian regime.

---

Not sure who you're addressing this too, but I personally have only been their sycophant since Ahmedinejad was elected. Prior to that, I don't think you found Iran sufficiently offensive, so there was little pleasure to be gained in praising it.

quote:

---

Dozens of your posts demonstrate this.

---

Links, please. At least 24 of them.

quote:

---

I don't debate at subterranean levels.

---

In fact, the US is right now backing Al Qaeda-linked insurgents against Iran.

So you think that supporting Obama makes me a "post-Trotskyist" neocon?

Since no other "post-Trotskyist neocons" support Obama, this is unlikely.

And I know that really, by `bullies`, you just mean the Great Satan, the USA, and never the tinpot dictatorships of the world which oppress their own people.

Why did Washington attack such tiny countries? Because the weaker they are the greater the threat. People who can free themselves against all the odds are sure to inspire others. Ciao muchacha xxx

[ 05 June 2008: Message edited by: Fidel ]

excerpt:

Palestinians are reacting angrily to Barack Obama's first foreign policy speech as the presumptive U.S. Democratic presidential candidate in which he called for Jerusalem to be the "undivided" capital of Israel.

Speaking to the pro-Israeli lobby group American Israel Public Affairs Committee on Wednesday, Obama called for Jerusalem to "remain the capital of Israel."

Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas was swift in his condemnation of the speech.

"This statement is totally rejected," he told reporters. " The whole world knows that holy Jerusalem was occupied in 1967, and we will not accept a Palestinian state without having Jerusalem as the capital."

excerpt:

Many Palestinians had identified Obama as an underdog due to his minority status and hoped he might signal a change in the United States's perceived pro-Israeli bias, says Zakaria al-Qaq of Al-Quds University, an Arab university in Jerusalem. But with Obama's latest comments, that sentiment will change, al-Qaq said.

"It's distressing, and it's kind of really showing no respect for us," he said.

excerpt:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Boom Boom:
Not all Palestinians immediately abandoned their positive view of Obama, though, suggesting instead that his remarks are simply political posturing.

---

Imagine this being a "positive view" of someone: "Oh, he's only politically posturing when he says he hates us and loves our enemy!"

quote:

---

Originally posted by josh:
While Obama was certainly guilty of pandering, I think too much is being made of his "undivided Jerusalem" comment.

---

With respect, josh, you have missed both the boat and the train here.

There's nothing wrong with "undivided Jerusalem".

His atrocious comment was that Jerusalem must "remain the capital of Israel".

Jerusalem is not the capital of Israel.

Not a single other country in the world - including the United States - recognizes Jerusalem as the capital of Israel.

quote:

---

Originally posted by josh:
It depends what you mean by Jerusalem.

---

I realize that Israeli occupation is amusing and all that, but perhaps you missed this recent thread.

Canada does not recognize Jerusalem as being within Israel. Canada does not recognize any part of Jerusalem as being within Israel. The United Nations doesn not recognize any part of Jerusalem as being within Israel.

Nor does any country (except Israel), as far as I know.

You can read the Federal Court of Appeal decision if you like. Here is an excerpt:

quote:

---

Legal Status of Jerusalem

[4] It is undisputed that Jerusalem has immense historic and religious significance to Jews, Muslims, and Christians throughout the world. It is perhaps because of this that the legal status of Jerusalem remains today a hotly contested issue. For the purposes of this appeal, it is sufficient to say that the United Nations takes the position, and has done so since the adoption of Resolution 181 in 1947, that Jerusalem is not lawfully within the territory of any state. In other words, according to the United Nations, it is a territory without a sovereign. (The details of how and why the United Nations adopted this position are set out in the reasons for the judgment under appeal, and need not be repeated here.)

[5] Consistent with the United Nations’ position, Canada does not recognize de jure that any part of Jerusalem is a part of the territory of the state of Israel, even though Israel has controlled the western portion of Jerusalem since the early 1950s, and the eastern portion of Jerusalem since the war of 1967. Canada does, however, maintain a diplomatic practice of acknowledging Israel’s de facto control of the western portion of Jerusalem, but not the eastern portion (see Affidavit of Michael D. Bell, sworn March 22, 2005, at paragraph 26).

---

The Supreme Court of Canada refused leave to appeal against this decision.

"Momentous Barack Obama speech supporting Israel sweeps AIPAC off its feet"
Edwin Black
June 4th 2008

Barack Obama at AIPAC

Barack Obama, AIPAC Annual Policy Conference, June 04, 2008
View Video

To thunderous repetitive peals of applause by 7,000 gathered attendees at the American Israel Political Affairs Committee Annual Policy Conference in Washington, D.C., Barack Obama today transformed himself in the minds of many doubting Jews and security-minded conservatives.

With unmistakable clarity, Obama stepped out of his haze as a questionable figure and stepped into the limelight as a stalwart in the American/Israel relationship and in the campaign to disarm the Iranian nuclear threat....

Setting aside his prepared remarks and speaking with crystal clarity, Obama declared loudly over the applause, “I will do everything in my power to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. Everything in my power. Everything.” ...

The Obama speech was the highlight of a remarkable American political event, the largest and most distinguished political assemblage in AIPAC’s history. Republican presidential candidate John McCain spoke earlier in the week when the conference opened. Today, in a star-studded turning point morning, Obama was preceded by Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi and followed presidential contender Hillary Clinton. Still aflame with enthusiasm, Clinton’s speech made no reference to further presidential ambition, and indeed repeatedly offered accolades to Obama. At one point she declared, “Let me be very clear, I know that Senator Obama will be a good friend to Israel.”Obama at AIPAC

Meanwhile, Obama may not have to make the "Everything" decision:

Pushing Bush to Attack Iran
By Dan Froomkin
Special to washingtonpost.com
Wednesday, June 4, 2008; 11:57 AM

Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert is expected to use his White House visit today to push President Bush to take a more aggressive approach toward Iran -- and there are some signs that he'll have a receptive audience.

Both Olmert and Bush are badly wounded and looking for salvation. Olmert is facing corruption allegations that could drive him from office. Bush is wildly unpopular, desperate to salvage his legacy and fighting irrelevance as the general election begins in earnest -- with even the Republican candidate trying to keep him at a distance.
[...]
"Citing sources close to the Israeli prime minister, Yediot Achronot reported on its front page Wednesday that Olmert, who is due to hold closed-door talks with Bush in Washington, will say that 'time is running out' on diplomatic efforts to curb Iran's nuclear program.

"The United States should therefore prepare to attack Iran, Olmert will tell Bush, according to Yediot."

Olmert certainly telegraphed as much in public last night. Matti Friedman writes for the Associated Press that "the Israeli prime minister told thousands of Israel supporters at the annual convention of the pro-Israel American Israel Public Affairs Committee on Tuesday that the Iranian threat 'must be stopped by all possible means.'

"Olmert said international sanctions aimed at stopping Iran from developing nuclear weapons must be ratcheted up urgently. . . .

"But sanctions are 'only an initial step,' and Iran's flouting of the international measures so far 'leave no doubt as to the urgent need for more drastic and robust measures,' Olmert said."

excerpt:

quote:

---

I think that it is smart for us to -- to work through a system in which everybody has access to the extraordinary religious sites in Old Jerusalem but that Israel has a legitimate claim on that city.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Boom Boom:
The man clearly has zero credibility on Middle East matters, and he's not even President yet. So, who should Americans vote for? Nader?

---

I believe people should be left to decide their own affairs without interference. U.S. citizens should vote for whomever they wish. People in Palestine/Israel must decide their fate with no interference whatsoever from Canadians, U.S., U.K., Iranians, Bulgarians or New Zealanders. It's important for progressives to be consistent on that principle.

quote:

---

I knew Barack Obama for many years as my state senator—when he used to attend events in the Palestinian community in Chicago all the time. I remember personally introducing him onstage in 1999, when we had a major community fundraiser for the community center in Deheisha refugee camp in the occupied West Bank. And that’s just one example of how Barack Obama used to be very comfortable speaking up for and being associated with Palestinian rights and opposing the Israeli occupation.

---

quote:

---

Khalidi said he supports Obama for president, "because he is the only candidate who has expressed sympathy for the Palestinian cause."

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by josh:
But, despite Obama's pandering to AIPAC, the fact is that the Palestinians could not hope to have a more favorable occupant of the white house

---

It's so kind of you to speak on behalf of the Palestinian people.

I prefer to listen to their elected representatives:

quote:

---

“Obama’s comments have confirmed that there will be no change in the U.S. administration’s foreign policy on the Arab-Israeli conflict,” Hamas official Sami Abu Zuhri told Reuters in Gaza.

“The Democratic and Republican parties support totally the Israeli occupation at the expense of the interests and rights of Arabs and Palestinians,” he said.

“Hamas does not differentiate between the two presidential candidates, Obama and McCain, because their policies regarding the Arab-Israel conflict are the same and are hostile to us, therefore we do have no preference and are not wishing for either of them to win,” Zuhri said.

---

That was June 4.

[ 06 June 2008: Message edited by: martin dufresne ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by West Coast Greeny:
Barack Obama expresses support for an undivided Jerusalem in Israel, and receives an endorsement from Hamas?

This guy is good.

---

quote:

---

What were you saying, josh?

---

Yeah, that's the ticket. A Hamas supporter for president. That's a winning combination.

quote:

---

Originally posted by josh:

Yeah, that's the ticket. A Hamas supporter for president. That's a winning combination.

---

You seem to miss the point. He is and always has been an unequivocal supporter of Israel. Progressive people figured that out long ago. Now he has gone farther than any president, by undermining even the "roadmap" strategy and announcing Israel's "claim" to Jerusalem.

quote:

---

No nominee has been as sympathetic to the Palestinian cause in the last nearly 30 years as Obama is.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by josh:

No nominee has been as sympathetic to the Palestinian cause in the last nearly 30 years as Obama is.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by josh:
I'll rely on the views of the people in Chicago who have actually dealt with him on the issue, thank you very much.

---

You mean, like that extreme pure leftist Reverend Wright? He actually dealt with Obama for about 20 years. Here is what he tried, unsuccessfully, to teach his disciple:

quote:

---

41. Q: How many UN resolutions did Israel violate by 1992?
A: Over 65

42. Q: How many UN resolutions on Israel did America veto between 1972 and 1990?
A: 30+

43. Q: How much does the U.S. fund Israel a year?
A:$5 billion

...

48. Q: How many nuclear warheads does Israel have?
A: Over 400

49. Q: Has Israel every allowed UN weapon inspections?
A: No

50. Q: What percentage of the Palestinian territories are controlled by Israeli settlements?
A: 42%

51. Q: Is Israel illegally occupying Palestinian land?
A: Yes

---

And the final question - the one Obama really never figured out:

53. Q: Who said, "Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter"?
A: Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr

No, Obama would have to support Castro, Mugabe, and Hamas, and probably be flexible on nuclear weapons for North Korea.

Otherwise, they'll just criticize.

quote:

---

Posted by unionist: I believe people should be left to decide their own affairs without interference. U.S. citizens should vote for whomever they wish. People in Palestine/Israel must decide their fate with no interference whatsoever from Canadians, U.S., U.K., Iranians, Bulgarians or New Zealanders. It's important for progressives to be consistent on that principle.

---

Why is it you come to one of the few sites on the net that allows opinions further to the left than Bob Rae? Is it really your mission in life to ensure that a whole spectrum of political thought has no place for discussion because you personally don't approve.

quote:

---

Originally posted by John K:
Oh and while I'm being opinionated... Michelle, I don't think Jeff's post was uncivil. I thought it used humor (and a touch of exaggeration) to make a valid point.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by John K:
So you're saying that no one other than Americans has the right to have an opinion on who should be President of the USA?

---

Correct, it's a violation of the fundamental principle that people are sovereign in the choice of their own governments and leaders.

quote:

---

You're obviously very opinionated about who shouldn't be US President. Aren't you thereby violating your own "principle" of "no interference?"

---

Absolutely not. Some Canadians run around saying Obama would be "better" than McCain or "better" than Clinton. So do some Europeans and Palestinians and others. It is vital that we analyze the statements and actions of these characters in an effort to predict how they will affect the rest of the world, including Canada. This is a matter of our sovereignty.

That's why, when people say (for example) that Obama is against the war in Iraq, or that Obama is sympathetic to the Palestinians, or that Obama stands for peace, it is of utmost importance to dispel these cheap marketing tactics.

As for issues of Obama leaving his church, condemning his pastor, etc., all those are indicative of the stands he takes and will take in world affairs.

It does not matter who is the President, which party has the majority in the House or the Senate.

1 thing is certain. The support from the overwhelming majority of the 536 is for the state of Isreal.

It shows what happens when you subscribe to a rigid ideology.

"We can criticize everybody, but it's a FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLE that you can't criticize us."

quote:

---

Originally posted by jeff house:
That last post is so inherently contradictory that it should be preserved in amber.

It shows what happens when you subscribe to a rigid ideology.

"We can criticize everybody, but it's a FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLE that you can't criticize us."

That's convenient for dictatorships, isn't it.

---

All of which is forgiveable on a Friday afternoon.

I would like to take this opportunity to wish all my fellow babblers a good weekend.

quote:

---

Absolutely not. Some Canadians run around saying Obama would be "better" than McCain or "better" than Clinton. So do some Europeans and Palestinians and others. It is vital that we analyze the statements and actions of these characters in an effort to predict how they will affect the rest of the world, including Canada. This is a matter of our sovereignty.

That's why, when people say (for example) that Obama is against the war in Iraq, or that Obama is sympathetic to the Palestinians, or that Obama stands for peace, it is of utmost importance to dispel these cheap marketing tactics.

As for issues of Obama leaving his church, condemning his pastor, etc., all those are indicative of the stands he takes and will take in world affairs.

U.S. citizens are free to choose whoever they want as president. It is our right, and I would suggest duty, to speak the truth about what consequences that will have for the world.

---

Split hairs much unionist?

quote:

---

Originally posted by John K:

So dictators who restrict themselves to oppressing their own people get a free pass?

---

No, of course not. We White Christians have a Sacred Duty to send Crusaders to Save Those People from their Own Poor Choices.

God Bless Our Armaments and Give Us Strength To Do Thy Will.

quote:

---

Originally posted by jeff house:
No, Obama would have to support Castro, Mugabe, and Hamas, and probably be flexible on nuclear weapons for North Korea.

Otherwise, they'll just criticize

---

Time for a reality break. It was the U.S. that threatened North Korea with nuclear weapons for over 50 years, not the other way around. U.S, military presence on Korean peninsula represents the greatest threat to peace in that region in these times still. Uncle Sam maintain over 730 foreign military bases still and the only rogue uberpower with nukes stationed on foreign soil.

It was the U.S. that has waged medieval sieges against North Korea, Cuba, Iraq, Cambodia, VietNam and more countries.

And it was the U.S. that demonstrated several times it would bomb or invade whichever countries it chose to, like: Libya, Grenada, Panama, Iraq, Yugoslavia and Afghanistan

quote:

---

Correct, it's (expressing an opinion about who you want to win) a violation of the fundamental principle that people are sovereign in the choice of their own governments and leaders.

---

I'm sorry but I don't see how "little old me" saying that i would rather that Obama win the American election than McCain is in any way shape or form violating the principle that "people are sovereign in the choice of their own governments and leaders".

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stockholm:
Americans have every right to vote how they please in their election - no one taking that away from them.

---

Nader says presidential candidates are pre-selected according to blood oath.

It's understood that any and all cosmetic leaders of the USSA shall not meddle with military budgets or decisions for blitzkrieg on various resource-rich or militarily strategic nations.

The cosmetic leader shall not welch on the anywhere from half to three-quarters of a trillion dollar taxpayer handouts to powerful right-wing corporate lobby every year.

And its understood that because billionaires and corporations fund anywhere from 90 to 98 percent of both parties' political campaigns, it will be crooked business as usual whichever pre-selected corporate stooge is elected.

[ 06 June 2008: Message edited by: Fidel ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fidel:
The Yanks have broken agreements for arms reduction. And since Dubya, any cosmetic U.S. leader can now launch nukes without Congressional green light. That was never true during the cold war. Nukes have no legitimate purpose, Jeff. And neither do chemical or biological WMD. And they didn't hesitate to used them on innocent women and children in Vietnam through to Iraq today. Obama, Raygun, Clinton, they are all the same cosmetic leader. Everybody knows it.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by MCunningBC:

To borrow a phrase, I think you've "lost your bearings".

---

quote:

---

Nader says presidential candidates are pre-selected according to blood oath.

It's understood that any and all cosmetic leaders of the USSA shall not meddle with military budgets or decisions for blitzkrieg on various resource-rich or militarily strategic nations.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stockholm:

By even posting this you are guilty of INTERFERING in the American election. Shame on you!

---

No sending cold warrior Oliver North to Managua before Nicaraguan elections represents a threat to democracy.

quote:

---

You seem to miss the point. He is and always has been an unequivocal supporter of Israel. Progressive people figured that out long ago

---

I'm not so sure about that, unionist. This article, by the Electronic Intifada's Ali Abunimah, suggests that Obama started out being fair-minded in his approach to Palestine.

quote:

---

The last time I spoke to Obama was in the winter of 2004 at a gathering in Chicago's Hyde Park neighborhood. He was in the midst of a primary campaign to secure the Democratic nomination for the United States Senate seat he now occupies. But at that time polls showed him trailing.

As he came in from the cold and took off his coat, I went up to greet him. He responded warmly, and volunteered, "Hey, I'm sorry I haven't said more about Palestine right now, but we are in a tough primary race. I'm hoping when things calm down I can be more up front." He referred to my activism, including columns I was contributing to the The Chicago Tribune critical of Israeli and US policy, "Keep up the good work!"

---

I suppose we could speculate, and say that God spoke to Obama and told him to support the holy cause of Israel, but my guess is that, with some gentle nudging by AIPAC, Obama saw the electoral light and decided to pander to the Jewish vote. More importantly, he decided to pander to the finances that the Israel Lobby would provide for him if he were to toe their ideological line.

quote:

---

But Obama's gradual shift into the AIPAC camp had begun as early as 2002 as he planned his move from small time Illinois politics to the national scene. In 2003, Forward reported on how he had "been courting the pro-Israel constituency." He co-sponsored an amendment to the Illinois Pension Code allowing the state of Illinois to lend money to the Israeli government.

Among his early backers was Penny Pritzker -- now his national campaign finance chair -- scion of the liberal but staunchly Zionist family that owns the Hyatt hotel chain. (The Hyatt Regency hotel on Mount Scopus was built on land forcibly expropriated from Palestinian owners after Israel occupied East Jerusalem in 1967).

---

[ 07 June 2008: Message edited by: al-Qa'bong ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stockholm:
Don't try to change the channel - just admit you're wrong.

---

Stephen Harper was guilty of interfering in U.S. elections recently. The feds in Ottawa have interfered with out own Wheat Board director elections a couple of years ago. We're lacking transparency in this country as we slid from 11th most competitve economy in the world to sixteenth. Since 2005, Canada is a hewer and drawer economy once again.

quote:

---

AQ, do me a big favour and lay off the "Jewish vote". How many Jews do you think there are in the U.S.?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stockholm:
Why? Because Jews are all bankers who control the world money supply? (sic.)

---