Australian PM criticises Barak Obama

by Rahood Mon Feb 12, 2007 18:18

[snip]
Good afternoon. Let me begin by saying that although this has been billed as an anti-war rally, I stand before you as someone who is not opposed to war in all circumstances.
[/snip]

[snip]
I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a US occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences. I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of al-Qaeda.I am not opposed to all wars. I’m opposed to dumb wars.
[/snip]
Delivered on 26 October 2002 by Barack Obama

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Barack_Obama's_Iraq_Speech

by tom eile Mon Feb 12, 2007 14:42

Howard directed his comments against the whole of the Democratic Party , not just Obana:
"If I were running al Qaeda in Iraq, I would put a circle around March 2008, and pray, as many times as possible, for a victory not only for Obama, but also for the Democrats,"

by Hoosier Mon Feb 12, 2007 13:01

Who takes Obama seriously?  Hillary does.
Are the American people ready for an elected president who was educated in a Madrassa as a young boy and has not been forthcoming about his Muslim heritage?
This is the question Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton’s camp is asking about Sen. Barack Obama.
I found this article interesting.
"An investigation of Mr. Obama by political opponents within the Democratic Party has discovered that Mr. Obama was raised as a Muslim by his stepfather in Indonesia. Sources close to the background check, which has not yet been released, said Mr. Obama, 45, spent at least four years in a so-called Madrassa, or Muslim seminary, in Indonesia.
God, I love it when the Dems eat each other.  But even though this is clearly just a matter of Hillary ruthlessly eliminating an opponent, it appears that she may truly be doing us a favor in this instance as regards Barack Hussein Obama.
The sources said the background check concerned Mr. Obama’s years in Jakarta. In Indonesia, the young Obama was enrolled in a Madrassa and was raised and educated as a Muslim. Although Indonesia is regarded as a moderate Muslim state, the U.S. intelligence community has determined that today most of these schools are financed by the Saudi Arabian government and they teach a Wahhabi doctrine that denies the rights of non-Muslims.
Although the background check has not confirmed that the specific Madrassa Mr. Obama attended was espousing Wahhabism, the sources said his Democratic opponents believe this to be the case—and are seeking to prove it. The sources said the opponents are searching for evidence that Mr. Obama is still a Muslim or has ties to Islam.
I don’t know or care if Obama is a practicing Muslim today.  But if he’s even sympathetic to Wahhabis at any level Democrats have to consider that a deal-breaker.  Let’s watch this and see where it goes. "

by Eric Cartman Mon Feb 12, 2007 12:48

The US presence in Iraq has been a mistake but it could be worse. Much worse.
Any fan of the TV show surely knows that Tony Soprano were whacked, his gang would soon splinter in a cannibalistic bloodbath. If the US removed itself from the Middle East the various countries, religious and ethnic groups would slaughter eachother and the conflict would spill over into a global conflict that would make the present conflict look like a pillow fight.
Which person could we blame most for the Middle East situation presently?
Lawrence of Arabia? Churchill? Nixon? Carter? Reagan? Clinton? Bush? Blair?
I think Saddam Hussein is the suitable candidate.
It was Saddam Hussein who completely destroyed and destabilised Iraq.
Western politicians who foolishly helped his rise to power bear some guilt for his crimes - he was intended to counter the tide of Iranian led Shia fundementalism - but they never dreamt he would bite the hand that fed him by invading Kuwait.
To be fair to America, they did remove him from power and gave the Iraqis a democratic constitution and democratic elections and a democratically elected government which has been endorsed by the UN and the international community - the Americans are certainly imperialists but they appear to be trying to rebuild and stablise Iraq though their misguided and misdirected efforts have ironically recuited thousands of jihadists from the Muslim world to the cause of Al-Qaeda and Islamic lunatics within the Iraqi Shia and Sunni communities who are bent on seizing power slaughtering their opposite numbers and using Iraqi oil revenue to spread slaughter and their primitive version of Islam throughout the Middle East and the entire globe.
The Islamists and Baathists, either Shia or Sunni who have carbombed, kidnapped, shot, tortured and beheaded are responsible for a death toll among Iraqi civilians that most stereotypically genocidal trigger happy American even with the benefit of devastating technology and firepower could only dream.
If anyone is destroying Iraq it is the terrorist groups and those who pull their strings in Iraq itself even among supposedly pro-US government, across the borders in Syria, Iran and Saudi Arabia.
The US is just one power player in the region - their presence will not stop the killing but their abscence will not stop the killing either and crucially may well make make it worse.
There are no good or bad options left anymore.
Only bad and worse.
The continuing US presence in Iraq is bad but the alternative is worse. Much worse.