open Democracy News Analysis - american power & the world - Comments

blogger on "Barack Obama’s poisoned shirt"

blogger — Wed, 04 Nov 2009 20:34:32 +0000

I am a big Obama supporter and pleased he got in especially now with the new making home affordable act.

deteodoru on "Neo-conservatism: Irving Kristol’s living legacy"

deteodoru — Fri, 16 Oct 2009 22:57:27 +0000

Perhaps I should have muted my rage, given that I had tears in my eyes over the passing of Irving Krystol as I typed my comment. The neocons raised war to level of cultural norm—BEFORE 9/11-- despite all the pleas and warnings of our generals. Elsewhere I had cited the evidence that this is not war as a means but as an end, used as a means often for personal ends. And, it was not enough for them to advocate war but, refusing to argue their case in dialogue, these ex-commies went by the old Lenin tactic of “polarize to mobilize.” Thus, if the issue were Israel's wars, for example, any questioning and you were not a debater to be engaged in meaningful dialogue but an "anti-Semite" or "self-hating Jew" to be denied freedom of speech. As for advocacy, the trail of their manipulative politics to that end and the characterization of their "World War IV" against "Islamo-fascist".... read that Crusade against Islam… they would push on their Yahoo Christian friends who want Israel to dominate the Mideast so that the End of Days comes sooner-- being atheistic themselves, they liked to poke fun at these "dumb goyim"-- one could well argue that there's something sick about their war mongering. The fact is that when we all faced the draft, the neocons were so not much for war but now that there is no draft and patriotic moms and dads leave behind orphans and widows back home because of the neocons’ lies which TO THIS DAY they perpetuate, one can wonder how it is that the war mongers-- ALWAYS war mongers as their universal passe par tout, but ironically limited to Mideast issues-- didn't ever consider service (THOUGH FASHIONING THEMSELVES AS MILITARY EXPERTS) or, as in one case, cursed the war when his own son went and then cheered its perpetuation again when he came back. I would have respected them far more if they had not become a war industry propaganda machine that slanders all who do not swallow the blood they spill while safe in their West Side Manhatten apartments or their lush villas payed from war industries at the sea shore of "anti-Semite Eurabia." And still, once upon a time in my youth I was an admirer of Krystol for his tireless struggle as a public intellectual and not a war monger. It was later-- AFTER the Cold War-- that he became part of an Upper West Side Pentagon of cynical World War IV advocates. With his passing I choose to remember the one time kind wise elderly gentleman I had met in my youth. I, in fact, would not associate him with the other Generation I neocons or the slimy Generation II of for hire politicos.

pryman on "Mercenaries and the new configuration of world violence"

pryman — Wed, 14 Oct 2009 00:40:03 +0000

I am personally afraid that PMCs are becoming too powerful...what is the world going to do then...?

Harry Davis on "Barack Obama’s poisoned shirt"

Harry Davis — Tue, 13 Oct 2009 09:09:37 +0000

The Nobel committee had a tough one this time. Maybe the prize is a bit of a poisoned chalice, but who else in the world would you give the peace prize to?

Kiprotich Arap-Ruto on "Barack Obama’s poisoned shirt"

Kiprotich Arap-Ruto — Mon, 12 Oct 2009 19:38:57 +0000

President Obama has been and continues to be successful as a inspiring symbol of hope, both in USA and Around the world.

I would say that hope can result in either superficial or fundamentation and charismatic change(s). And, the process(es) of change can be spontaneous and immediate/instanteous or gradual.

Writing fie Open Democracy News Analysis, Godfrey Hodgson, the director of the Reuters' Foundation Programme at Oxford University, has a good and non convincing analogy about Greek "shirt of Nessus" myth preserved in the Roman poet Ovid's Metamorphoses - a tale for the times - compared to President Barack Obama's 9 October 2009 Nobel peace prize.

It takes time to roll-back the ills of the many years of Bush rule in America and around the world. Let alone the time and energy required to set and achieve how awesome goals for the USA and manking in general. So being a black President is not change enough for me. I am black, but I would like to see improvement in soc-economic status of the havenots in America and around the world.

Withdrawing from Iraq is inconsequential for me, because there was no business in having to invade Iraq in the first place. The resources being used to "fight terror" and to keep the fight in the Arabic countries, like Afghanistan is disheartening and disturbing to say the very least. And I could go on and on about strategic areas of improvement that could siginificantly place Barak Hussein Obama and his lovely family in a much more favourable position of leadership around both in USA and the world.

- Comment by: Kiprotich Arap-Ruto, Canada - Email: kenruto@hotmail.com

Franco Munini on "Barack Obama’s poisoned shirt"

Franco Munini — Mon, 12 Oct 2009 18:36:12 +0000

It never ceases to surprise me how blind USAmericans are about the rest of the world.
Oreama was supposed to represent hopes and change not only for the US, but for the rest of the world, too. Only a few knew that he was not going to be able to deliver all the rosy future he was promising... and the worst part is that HE HIMSELF was one of them.
I wrote about this:
http://elsoberanomanda.blogspot.com/2009/08/oreamas-role-in-usrael-psychowars.html
He knows the beast from deep inside. He just accepted the role of Judas, raising good feelings and hopes as a masquerade for the powers to continue predating everything. He just plays his role, as any useless, powerless USAmerican president.
So, this award is a poisoned shirt on peace. The guys in Norway lowered any preconceivable standard on it, so it has become a fake tin badge that gives no honors whatsoever to its recipients.
Now, imagine what Oreama could do if he really wanted, and how the US and the rest of the world would benefit from it if he had what it takes.

NYCartist on "Barack Obama’s great test "

NYCartist — Thu, 01 Oct 2009 14:32:04 +0000

Abuelita, I may be an abuelita (don't know), and I am not a "he".

NYCartist on "Barack Obama’s great test "

NYCartist — Thu, 01 Oct 2009 14:29:03 +0000

(Continuing my reflections on the article)Obama is not a liberal and yet has wonderful world press, and the contradictions in his administration grow:

for example: see today's headlines on the home page of "DemocracyNow" www.democracynow.org - specifically the one about the Obama Administration expanding nuclear weapons production via plutonium pits... This is happening not long after Obama spoke on the danger of nuclear weapsons, etc.

abuelita42pj on "Barack Obama’s great test "

abuelita42pj — Wed, 30 Sep 2009 23:57:02 +0000

The writer above is correct when he says Obama is not liberal. A liberal will turn too many people off though it shouldn't. He can be optimistic and he will "play" the game of being nice or trying out bipartisanship. Like he mentioned in his speech to the joint session of congress a couple of weeks ago--"I may be optimistic but I'm not a sap." He's given Republicans and the overly moderate Democrats with $$$ in their eyes some chances to do what he thinks is best for all concerned--not just their district or state. Most haven't taken him up. They think they know more than he does. They need to be careful. Their demands may come back to haunt them. He's gotten harsh with the MR. NO Republicans and has called Democrats into his office mostly on health care but also foreign policy. He hears what lobbyists, congress people and loud voters say but most of the time he makes the decisions from a variety of sources and his own head. This came to note with his harsh statements against Iran on Monday and his follow up statements more of a professorial lecturer to the audience--mostly reporters and foreign policy aides. He is not going to get all excited if others from other countries question him but he will usually have a good answer if not the final statement. This is not an Bush or Clinton turned inside out. He thinks way beyond most of his peers in Congress and some things that Bush started--domestically and with Guantanamo--esp those in the courts, he will let be carried through to their conclusions and say very little if the federal prosecutors lose. In many cases they will. Those "secret files" of Cheney are exceptionally weak in evidence and should never have even been tried 70% of the time and the other 30% chould still be lost to the defendent. It is not the president's position to determine what cases are good for court and what are not. Guantanamo can be taken care of in February, 2010 if the states are still howling "not in my backyard." He can use Executive privilege to have what ones are still there to be moved to a maximum-secure prison and then assign AG Holder to have lawyers try each case. They are Federally owned and guarded. Some of the very top ones can still be tried, despite the torture treatment given. Their actions caused 2400 people's deaths are still not equal in the minds of most jurors but they may end up with life in prison rather than the death penalty. Which in my mind they don't need anyway. Let them suffer in prison on this land just as they had in "Gitmo" minus the torture. Remember a lot of the items Obama had planned in 2008 got pushed to the back burner with the "great recession". and until there are more jobs and fewer foreclosed houses, some other ideas must just wait. He has done more domestically and internationally in 9 months than Bush did in 8 years. Look at each of the EU prime ministers or presidents and see if there are others there that have done as much in as little time and each one has people and money equivalent to 5-8 of our biggest states and no one is in agreement with the others about what to do regarding rules for finance and banking internationally. They are still all separate. Obama has 50 nasty children to placate and reprimand. No one else does--other than the gentleman from Spain over the EU and who of the 27 listens to him???

NYCartist on "Barack Obama’s great test "

NYCartist — Wed, 30 Sep 2009 22:24:37 +0000

A quick comment, as I wish to reread the 2nd half of the article. I like the point re Obama looking more like LBJ. Want to point out that Obama is not a liberal. See any of Paul Street's writing, some on Znet www.Zcommunications.org/znet - especially one from mid Aug.2009, and google "Paul Street". Street has been looking at Obama's political career for a long time - "long" in the sense that Obama's political career has been rather brief and meteoric. There's a good article on Black Agenda Report,www.blackagendareport.com by Bruce A. Dixon, I think, a main contributor to the website, about the fantasy of Obama that many supporters have had, which may be evaporating.

The other point I wish to make is that Bagram in Afghanistan may be the new "Gitmo". Several sources are good: see the website of the ACLU American Civil Liberties Union; the group has been concerned for some time about it. www.aclu.org

deteodoru on "Neo-conservatism: Irving Kristol’s living legacy"

deteodoru — Wed, 30 Sep 2009 15:29:16 +0000

The neocons wrote up a scene for Israeli domination of the Middle East using US military power like a mad dog on Israel's leach. Then they declared WORLD WAR IV on Islam, thinking that this way both sides of their bread would be buttered: on one side the Zionist Likudniks, on the other the military-industrial complex that Eisenhower warned us about which was in panic about the "END OF COLD WAR PEACE DIVIDEND." Of course, they never got what they wanted until a Islamic group just as intense as them attacked the US on 9/11; except that, unlike the neocons who advocate someone else going to war while they pull strings for their own (even fighting Hitler they wouldn't do), the alQaeda guys became suicide shahids. Another aspect of the neocon call for Greater Israel, its damnation of Mideast and destruction of Muslims, they declared themselves THE voice of American Jewry and attacked their critics as "self-hating Jews." Your analogy is made in a vacuum. All I can say for Krystol-- in my faith we try not to speak ill of the dead-- is that through thick and thin he argued his side openly (though never much of a promoter of meaningful dialogue like the US Commies at UC Berkeley). But what condemns them all hardest is if you look at their family assets. They came a long way from poor commies to rich war mongers. Read about that and you'll see that they were no crime-fighters!

bigC on "Neo-conservatism: Irving Kristol’s living legacy"

bigC — Sun, 27 Sep 2009 18:47:29 +0000

This is a completely uncritical look at Kristol's life. Not a mention of it's disastrous outcome for both the US and the World as a whole. Like most leftists who drift rightwards( eg Mussolini, Mosely) , Kristol didn't stop drifting and ending up creating a monster totally contemptuous of morality and justice and which regards democracy as a prop to legitimate the rule of the herd by the privileged. The world was not enriched by his presence in it and is not poorer for his leaving it.

DMZ on "Neo-conservatism: Irving Kristol’s living legacy"

DMZ — Sun, 27 Sep 2009 05:29:06 +0000

deteodoru said:
"But, in his old age, when the issue became Israel, he, like a lot of neocons who would never allow themselves or their sons to be put in harm's way by enisting in military service as infantrymen or even move to Israel so as to support it, was ever ready to sent thousands of American moms and dads to Mideast combat at risk of leaving their families as widows and orphans."

---------------I say to deteodoru:
I think the chickenhawk argument is silly. Just as you can be against crime and not wish to be a police officer, you can support a war and not be in the military. That said, I have no idea how many neo-cons have family in the military and I doubt you do either. Your seem to say that Kristol and other neo-cons in general can't be trusted when it comes to Israel. Interesting sentiment...I ask you, why do you think that is the case?

Yitzhak Klein on "Neo-conservatism: Irving Kristol’s living legacy"

Yitzhak Klein — Thu, 24 Sep 2009 12:11:04 +0000

A fair and balanced assessment of neoconservatism and of Irving Kristol on OpenDemocracy!

deteodoru on "Neo-conservatism: Irving Kristol’s living legacy"

deteodoru — Wed, 23 Sep 2009 23:33:37 +0000

As much as I felt that in the end the neocons were a bunch of shysters, I must also recall the energy and devotion they invested in intellect years ago before drowning in vitriolic polemics for profit. During the Cold War they were all indeed the true "public intellectuals." As one averse to social issues and focused on the scientific revolution unfolding in my youth, I must declare that it was they who, more than any others, got me fully involved in dealing with the social science of political policies as a citizen's duty rather than pechant. Had they been more open to debate after 9/11things would not have ended so tragically. Irving Krystol was not an evil man. But he may have fallen victim to mere chutzpah which robs one of the capacities of introspection and critical judgement. In his later years he stopped sensing what feel those he opposes or feel righteous about and was driven by others into a "professional revolutionary" tactic (Lenin's term) of polarizing to mobilize. He thus found himself demanding obedience more that discussion, the latter something he very obviously enjoyed most deeply in the past. For all us this "I'm right and you're an idiot" attitude gets much worse as we get older and in his case has caused his downfall. But that should not take away from his earlier devotion as one of the "public intellectuals" to provoking an America repulsed by "egg heads" into discourse on issues requiring study and debate. Personally, his death struck me rather deeply for it brought to an end all prospects for a meeting of the minds-- a hope based on the notion: where there's life there's hope. I cannot forget that he and most of the other first generation neocons entered the arena of academic debate and there made their mark rather than concentrating on milking the focus of power, Wash DC, as did the second generation of neocons. Krystol was not a bought man and so, whatever his faults, it is more than fair to say that he lived for ideas and their testing by open minds. But, in his old age, when the issue became Israel, he, like a lot of neocons who would never allow themselves or their sons to be put in harm's way by enisting in military service as infantrymen or even move to Israel so as to support it, was ever ready to sent thousands of American moms and dads to Mideast combat at risk of leaving their families as widows and orphans. The gingoistic tone of the pear-shaped second generation of neocons is a striking contrast. As for the first generation, the more gingoistic their diatribes became after 9/11, the more distant they seemed from their better days of more moral intellect during the Cold War. Alas, for us all, death ends the hope of reconciliation to that magic point where we look forward to stimulating clash of ideas. Now public intellectuals have been replaced by interested activists, some for sale, other for reasons of their own. Academia seems silenced and all we get are the diatribes of think tanks on cable TV news. It thus seems that the Soviet-like anti-intellectual propaganda that Krystol devoted his life to fighting against has become the sole output of everything he was involved with to the last of his days. I shall greive his passing, for he had, nevertheless, contributed much to moving America's "anti-egghead" mentality of the 40s and 50s to the intellectual highs of the 60s, 70s and 80s.