Obama Justifies Warmongering for Oil at the UN

[blackascoal]

Obama Gives Wide-Ranging Endorsement of US Interventionism in UN Speech
September 24, 2013

President Obama broke no new ground in his United Nations speech today, a speech devoted almost entirely to problems in and around the Middle East: Syria, Iran, the Israel-Palestine conflict, the Arab Spring and Egypt, terrorism, and US intervention policy. Repeatedly, however, Obama seemed intent on justifying US military inteventionism in world conflicts.

That he broke no new ground is not an encouraging development. He asked a lot of rhetorical questions:

The crisis in Syria and the destabilization of the region goes to the heart of broader challenges that the international community must now confront. How should we respond to conflicts in the Middle East and North Africa? Conflicts between countries, but also conflicts within them. How do we address the choice of standing callously by while children are subjected to nerve gas, but we’re embroiling ourselves in someone else’s civil war?

What’s the role of force in resolving disputes that threaten the stability of the region and undermine all basic standards of civilized conduct? And what’s the role of the United Nations and international law in meeting cries for justice?

But his answers, framed against his attempts at justifying his own recent decision to bomb Syria, were less than satisfactory. Seeming to defer repeatedly to the liberal-interventionist views of his new UN ambassador, Samantha Power, Obama appeared to be looking for reasons to justify US interventionism abroad, especially the very controversial Responsibility to Protect doctrine and the idea that every mass slaughter or set of civilian deaths borders on the sort of Rwanda-style genocide that might justify American military action.

It’s true—and we can applaud this fact—that Obama spoke out in favor of diplomacy on issues such as Syria, Iran and Palestine. That, of course, is what the United Nations is for.

Still, he issued stark endorsements of interventionism, in passages such as this one:

But [national] sovereignty cannot be a shield for tyrants to commit one murder. Or an excuse for the international community to turn a blind eye. While we need to be modest in our belief that we can remedy every evil, while we need to be mindful that the world is full of unintended consequences, should we really accept the notion that the world is powerless in the face of a Rwanda, or Srebrenica?

If that’s the world that people want to live in, they should say so, and reckon with the cold logic of mass graves.

Or this one, justifying U.S. and NATO bombing of Libya in 2011:

But does anyone truly believe that the situation in Libya would be better, if Gadhafi had been allowed to kill, imprison or brutalize his people into submission?

Or, especially, this one:

There will be times when the breakdown of societies is so great, the violence against civilians so substantial, that the international community will be called upon to act. This will require new thinking and some very tough choices. While the United Nations was designed to prevent wars between states, increasingly we face the challenge of preventing slaughter within states.

And these challenges will grow more pronounced as we are confronted with states that are fragile or failing, places where horrendous violence can put innocent men, women and children at risk with no hope of protection from their national institutions. I’ve made it clear that even when America’s core interests are not directly threatened, we stand ready to do our part to prevent mass atrocities and protect basic human rights.

And, in case you’d forgotten the tangle of issues in the Middle East centers on the oil industry, there was this rather honest statement from President Obama:

The United States of America is prepared to use all elements of our power, including military force, to secure our core interests in the region. We will confront external aggression against our allies and partners, as we did in the Gulf War.

We will ensure the free flow of energy from the region to the world. Although America is steadily reducing our own dependence on imported oil, the world still depends on the region’s energy supply and a severe disruption could destabilize the entire global economy.

So, there you have it. We’ll work with other countries to resolve conflicts if we can. But, “we will ensure the free flow of energy from the region” and we are “prepared to use all elements of our power, including military force, to secure our core interests.” Bingo
http://www.thenation.com/blog/176321...#axzz2fonB2WQq

[anatta]

Or this one, justifying U.S. and NATO bombing of Libya in 2011:

But does anyone truly believe that the situation in Libya would be better, if Gadhafi had been allowed to kill, imprison or brutalize his people into submission

ya. I caught that dissembling lie -damn near threw my shoe at the TV.

Samantha Power, Obama appeared to be looking for reasons to justify US interventionism abroad, especially the very controversial Responsibility to Protect doctrine and the idea that every mass slaughter or set of civilian deaths borders on the sort of Rwanda-style genocide that might justify American military action.

Obama is still the same - looking for international cover this time, but still ready for more "dizzying interventionism"

[blackascoal]

ya. I caught that dissembling lie -damn near threw my shoe at the TV.

Obama is still the same - looking for international cover this time, but still ready for more "dizzying interventionism"

Obama remains the same warmongering fuck that he has always been.

[Village Negroe]

Obama remains the same warmongering fuck that he has always been.

I see your disdain and total misunderstanding of the objectives of our government and particularly this President still overwhelm you, BAC. You're a danger even to yourself.

Petula

[anatta]

Obama remains the same warmongering fuck that he has always been.

same advisors whispering in his ear.

Clapper/Power/Rice

[blackascoal]

I see your disdain and total misunderstanding of the objectives of our government and particularly this President still overwhelm you, BAC. You're a danger even to yourself.

Petula

How stupid.

Obviously you know absolutely NOTHING about the objectives of this government nor its history.

[blackascoal]

49% in Poll Fault Obama on Policies Outside U.S.
September 24, 2013

About half of Americans disapprove of the way President Obama is handling foreign policy, a new high as he confronts a diplomatic opening with Iran and efforts to remove chemical arms in Syria, according to the latest New York Times/CBS News poll.

Forty-nine percent disapproved of Mr. Obama’s foreign policy efforts, up 10 points since early June, and 40 percent approved.

The president’s negative rating on foreign policy has grown among Americans of all political stripes, with disapproval up 8 points among Democrats, 10 points among Republicans and 13 points among independents.

The poll also found that 52 percent disapproved of the way Mr. Obama was handling the situation in Syria. On his handling of relations with Iran, 39 percent approved, while 44 percent disapproved.

“I think he’s looking very weak, and he put us in a dangerous situation with Syria,” Arlene Woods, 57, an independent voter from Ellicott City, Md., said in a follow-up interview. “I have a son in the military. When it doesn’t involve our own safety or security on our soil, then I don’t think it’s justifiable to use military force.”

more
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/25/wo...utside-us.html

[Village Negroe]

How stupid.

Obviously you know absolutely NOTHING about the objectives of this government nor its history.

It's very clear that I know many volumes more than you and I have far less hate for myself and my government than you do. Study up a bit and get back with something credible and reasonable. You normally do better than that kind of bullshit, BAC.

Petula

[blackascoal]

It's very clear that I know many volumes more than you and I have far less hate for myself and my government than you do. Study up a bit and get back with something credible and reasonable. You normally do better than that kind of bullshit, BAC.

Petula

It's very clear that you don't know shit about anything related to me, politics, or this government.

[anatta]

49% in Poll Fault Obama on Policies Outside U.S.
September 24, 2013

About half of Americans disapprove of the way President Obama is handling foreign policy, a new high as he confronts a diplomatic opening with Iran and efforts to remove chemical arms in Syria, according to the latest New York Times/CBS News poll.

Forty-nine percent disapproved of Mr. Obama’s foreign policy efforts, up 10 points since early June, and 40 percent approved.

The president’s negative rating on foreign policy has grown among Americans of all political stripes, with disapproval up 8 points among Democrats, 10 points among Republicans and 13 points among independents.

The poll also found that 52 percent disapproved of the way Mr. Obama was handling the situation in Syria. On his handling of relations with Iran, 39 percent approved, while 44 percent disapproved.

“I think he’s looking very weak, and he put us in a dangerous situation with Syria,” Arlene Woods, 57, an independent voter from Ellicott City, Md., said in a follow-up interview. “I have a son in the military. When it doesn’t involve our own safety or security on our soil, then I don’t think it’s justifiable to use military force.”

more
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/25/wo...utside-us.html

US citizens are either too hawkish, or too unknowledgeable of the world, to put much stock in this poll as to Obama's real performance.

I'm all for any opening with Iran, provided we know what the heck we want from any detente' and I think we put way too much emphasis on nukes.

Iran could position itself as a regional power player - butt up against US interests, and easily give up nukes. They've signaled as much, as a red herring

Nukes are really no help in the ME - "Nukes or not" if we warred against Iran we could overwhelm any attempt to use them

Even talking about using nukes is just insane -they are not part of strategic thought -just something everyone focus on.

I wonder what Kerry and the Iranian Foreign Minister will be talking about? There's where we need to have a meeting of the minds

[blackascoal]

US citizens are either too hawkish, or too unknowledgeable of the world, to put much stock in this poll as to Obama's real performance.

I'm all for any opening with Iran, provided we know what the heck we want from any detente' and I think we put way too much emphasis on nukes.

Iran could position itself as a regional power player - butt up against US interests, and easily give up nukes. They've signaled as much, as a red herring

Nukes are really no help in the ME - "Nukes or not" if we warred against Iran we could overwhelm any attempt to use them

Even talking about using nukes is just insane -they are not part of strategic thought -just something everyone focus on.

I wonder what Kerry and the Iranian Foreign Minister will be talking about? There's where we need to have a meeting of the minds

What this poll and many others clearly demonstrate is that Americans are tired of war .. which of course was known long before now .. and in fact, was a great contributing factor to Obama being elected in the first place.

Americans being fed up with out corporate for-profit wars is much better place to be than 'you are either with us or against us.'

[anatta]

What this poll and many others clearly demonstrate is that Americans are tired of war .. which of course was known long before now .. and in fact, was a great contributing factor to Obama being elected in the first place.

Americans being fed up with out corporate for-profit wars is much better place to be than 'you are either with us or against us.'

ya. war fatigue is definately part of the Obama drop in polls. But we're SO easily 'ginned up' by emotive thought for war.

Especially the "nice clean wars" we run in AfPak, or Yemen, or any so called hot spot.

PS US troops have been getting slaughtered in Afgan this month:

The DoD is reporting the deaths of two Sailors previously unreported by the military. Lt. Cmdr. Landon L. Jones and Chief Warrant Officer Jonathon S. Gibson died in a helicopter crash in the Red Sea on Sunday, September 22nd. They were supporting Operation Enduring Freedom.

DoD: Staff Sgt. Liam J. Nevins

DoD: Staff Sgt. Timothy R. McGill

DoD: Spc. Joshua J. Strickland

DoD: Lt. Cmdr. Landon L. Jones

DoD: Chief Warrant Officer Jonathon S. Gibbs
http://warnewstoday.blogspot.com/

a whole bunch more listed if you care to look at my link - I check it daily for the "carnage report"

Now do you see ANY OF THESE covered on the news??

The American People don't want to know, war weary or NOT - we allow this SHIT to just drag on............

[evince]

pretending we can ignore the world has Never in history worked to keep us safe

[anatta]

pretending we can ignore the world has Never in history worked to keep us safe

You need to read Wshington's Farewell Address.

Get some context on "permanent Alliances", A must read for all the "interventionism" fevered hawks out there.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_...rewell_Address

Once again making reference to proper behavior based upon religious doctrine and morality, Washington advocates a policy of good faith and justice towards all nations, and urges the American people to avoid long-term friendly relations or rivalries with any nation. He argues these attachments and animosity toward nations will only cloud the government's judgment in its foreign policy.

Washington argues that longstanding poor relations will only lead to unnecessary wars due to a tendency to blow minor offenses out of proportion when committed by nations viewed as enemies of the United States.
He continues this argument by claiming that alliances are likely to draw the United States into wars which have no justification and no benefit to the country beyond simply defending the favored nation.
Washington continues his warning on alliances by claiming that they often lead to poor relations with nations who feel that they are not being treated as well as America's allies, and threaten to influence the American government into making decisions based upon the will of their allies instead of the will of the American people

[evince]

You need to stop hating everything Obama does because it makes you feel all warm inside.


Every time a dem president shows the fuck he will NOT back down to evil there are a cabal of people who have to pretend hes being unwise.

That group includes the very republican idiots who will still say all Dems are chicken shit when it comes to foreign policy.



Its how the Republicans keep their bullshit reputations for being strong on foreign policy.


Obama is leader of the free world folks and look at all the leaders in the Mid east who are now trying to show "oh no hey we are reasonable and want to work with you".


You hate that I was right and Obama and his willingness to BOMB a dictator who gassed babies in their sleep would pay in some way for that evil.


When a dem world leaders acts solidly strong for the RIGHT reasons you fucking hate on him?


your an enemy of the left for that as surely as you were defending the right of a dictator to kill children for political reasons.


why do you do this bac?

it makes you look so very foolish