nat8899

nat8899

21p

15 comments posted · 0 followers · following 0

14 years ago @ Antiwar.com Original A... - Instead of Bombs and B... · 0 replies · +1 points

Bravo, Mr. Paul! Your opinion is so simple and so straightforward that it may sound naive to some misguided souls. But it is as fresh, as accurate and as wise an opinion as it is simple and straightforward. The only mystery is why there aren’t far more people in our country who are as sensible as you are. Isn’t empathy the ultimate basis for all human communication? Why do so many Americans lack in empathy? Is our culture so bad that it destroys the most basic human nature from so many of our citizens?

14 years ago @ Antiwar.com Original A... - Previous Governments: ... · 0 replies · +1 points

Excellent! I am still hoping that after Obama has accomplished some major policy initiatives, such as health care reform, under his belt, he will relax his objection to an investigation of the Bush era crimes. Otherwise, his legacy will be at best a tainted one, carrying the baggage of the criminality of the Bush/Cheney regime as part of his own.

14 years ago @ Antiwar.com Original A... - Killing Them Softly · 0 replies · +1 points

I don’t mean to nick pick but, I must say, I am not sure that the author is saying that what lies ahead is our nation’s complete ruin. Rather, I think, he is saying that what our government is doing under Obama is to continue the exact same thing as Bush/Cheney admin did: killing civilians in another country at the expense of our huge national resources that does not even have any bearing to our national security or other national interest. Such policy should be rejected and condemned for its immoral nature and for being contrary to our national interest, regardless of whether it would necessarily cause our national ruin or not. For just because our nation may be so rich that we can afford such wanton waste of national resources, even if that were true, does not justify adopting such policy. In that sense, the fact that our government is engaged in such policy also has something more to do than mere incompetence: most probably, the greed of the so-called military industrial complex and their power to control and manipulate our government, as President Eisenhower had so famously warned us several decades ago.

14 years ago @ News From Antiwar.com - Official: US Won'... · 0 replies · +1 points

It is fortunate that the State Dept. has adopted a rational interpretation. Any attempt to use force will only aggravate the situation and will not contribute to peace in that region or around the world.

14 years ago @ Antiwar.com Original A... - Obama Targets Antiwar ... · 0 replies · +1 points

Yes, we must support Donna Edwards of Maryland, Alan Grayson of Florida, Eric Massa of New York, Chellie Pingree of Maine, Jared Polis of Colorado and Jackie Speier of California for success in their re-election campaigns and make sure that they are all re-elected. And we must also work to defeat pro-war candidates in other jurisdictions, whether Republican or Democrat. We must also work to put more pressure on Obama for torture investigations and for full compliance of civil rights.

14 years ago @ Antiwar.com Original A... - Obama in Cairo: Words,... · 0 replies · +1 points

II agree with much of what you say. I, too, can support the old Republicanism, but not the current version of “Republicanism” now championed by the likes of Dick Cheney, Rush Limbaugh, Newt Gingrich, Karl Rove, and a host of neo-cons. Their mantra is always more social control, more government surveillance, fear mongering, war-mongering, torturing prisoners, foreign invasion to subjugate any nation that does not show sufficient respect to our awesome military power. All of this is directly contrary to what I believe libertarianism stands for, not to mention that it goes against the core concept of the Christian ethics of “Love thy neighbor”. It is nothing short of a national tragedy that many of fellow voters have been duped into believing that these perverted “Republicans” alone can protect our safety. Whatever shortcomings the Obama administration may have shown so far, it was refreshing and still inspiring to listen to his speech in Cairo.

14 years ago @ Antiwar.com Original A... - Obama in Cairo: Words,... · 0 replies · +1 points

Just to say where I am coming from: I consider myself, fundamentally, a libertarian, but with compassion. So, while I adhere to all fundamental principles of libertarianism (individual freedom and the least government interference in private lives), I do not consider it an anathema to good government to provide certain social safety nets, such as welfare program, unemployment insurance, national health care system, etc. These are measures to protect the less well off, and there is nothing in the concept of libertarianism, which is inconsistent with the idea of collective compassion and assistance for the poor, old, disabled, and so forth. In this sense, fundamental libertarianism, a certain basic form of pacifism and certain forms of progressive politics on social safety net programs are all compatible with one another and can form a coalition of political forces against the wanton militarism that can destroy much of what is good in our country.

14 years ago @ Antiwar.com Original A... - Obama in Cairo: Words,... · 0 replies · +1 points

As you also point out, there may be external factors which will critically influence the course of action he will be taking: political forces which are beyond his control and which will seriously restrain Mr. Obama’s political ability to carry out his preferred policy options. As Mearsheimer and Walton show in his now well-known book, The Israel Lobby, US Congress in the past often supported the Israeli government policy lines rather than what the US president intended to do, when there was a showdown between the two political choices.

For this reason, now may not be the time for us the US citizens to be overly critical of our president; instead, we must give Mr. Obama the benefit of the doubt and provide all the political support that his electorate can possibly provide him so that he can carry out his preferred policy goals boldly and uninhibitedly, first in connection with the Palestine-Israel conflict which is at the core of many foreign policy issues.

14 years ago @ Antiwar.com Original A... - Obama in Cairo: Words,... · 0 replies · +2 points

I could not agree more with your overall assessment and critique of Mr. Obama's speech in Cairo yesterday. On the one hand, his speech could be viewed as an integral part of a possible effort to escalate overall military campaigns in Central Asia and possibly in other regions, including a possible preparation for a war with Iran. In this interpretation, his role would not be to change the course of this country from the ruinous ways of his predecessor; instead, it would be to continue to pursue the same ruinous ways, but only more competently and more effectively than his bumbling predecessor, the Bush/Cheney team.

On the other hand, what he said about the Palestine-Israel conflict generally, as well as more specifically about some of the related matters, like Hama’s possible role in the future of the political landscape in that region, though somewhat unsatisfactory in details, was far more serious and realistic and, in its overall tone and substance, was a radical departure from the standard rhetoric of any US presidents in the recent past. We will know what is his true vision and long-term foreign policy goal through his action in the near future.

14 years ago @ Antiwar.com Original A... - Torture Proponents\' D... · 0 replies · +1 points

Could not agree more on your point that this debate is more than about policy differences, and that it goes right to the issue of conscience. This is also why we cannot simply move on and still believe that we have dealt with the issue raised by these dark pages of our history.