Who is he trying to sell that he isn't a war monger? He could use acceptance by US voters and our international allies and enemies. Also, he needs to have respect for himself. He would have to convince himself that he does not have blood on his hands. If he can succeed at that the delusional wartime president can sell anything.
Obama's sheer hypocrisy in accepting the Nobel Peace Prize rivals Bush 43's Mission Accomplished scam. Obama pretends to apologize for the US' imperialistic wars, which only irritates the GOP. It doesn't sway the Islamic world. He doesn't get to compare himself to Gandhi when he is committing war crimes, which using unmanned drones are.
The 24 November 2002 article bin Laden's 'letter to America' at
describes why we are in Bush 43's GWOT. Bin laden is asked why are we fighting and opposing you? He describes many valid rationales regarding Israel and Islamic countries that cooperate with the infidels, and then, as the article states "You steal our wealth and oil at paltry prices because of your international influence and military threats. This theft is indeed the biggest theft ever witnessed by mankind in the history of the world.
(e) Your forces occupy our countries; you spread your military bases throughout them; you corrupt our lands, and you besiege our sanctities, to protect the security of the Jews and to ensure the continuity of your pillage of our treasures.
(f) You have starved the Muslims of Iraq, where children die every day. It is a wonder that more than 1.5 million Iraqi children have died as a result of your sanctions, and you did not show concern. Yet when 3000 of your people died, the entire world rises and has not yet sat down."
Okay, bin Laden is our enemy. Does anyone else agree with him?
Share The World's Resources is a non-governmental organization with consultative status at the Economic and Social Council of the United Nations that advocates for governments to secure basic human needs by sharing essential resources such as water, energy and staple food.
Its article The US Imperial Triangle and Military Spending at
agrees with bin laden as the article states "Even as insightful a left historian as Eric Hobsbawm has recently adopted this general perspective. Thus in his 2008 book On Empire Hobsbawm writes: "Frankly, I can't make sense of what has happened in the United States since 9/11 that enabled a group of political crazies to realize long-held plans for an unaccompanied solo performance of world supremacy....Today a radical right-wing regime seeks to mobilize true Americans against some evil outside force and against a world that does not recognize the uniqueness, the superiority, the manifest destiny of America.... In effect, the most obvious danger of war today arises from the global ambitions of an uncontrollable and apparently irrational government in Washington....To give America the best chance of learning to return from megalomania to rational foreign policy is the most immediate and urgent task of international politics." Such a view, which sees the United States as under the influence of a new irrationalism introduced by George W. Bush and a cabal of neoconservative political crazies, and consequently calls for a return from megalomania to rational foreign policy, downplays the larger historical and structural forces at work that connect the Cold War and post Cold War imperial eras."
This won't end well for the US as the article states "Nevertheless, the imperial triangle is now increasingly confronted with its own contradictions. As Baran and Sweezy foresaw more than four decades ago in Monopoly Capital, the U.S. military system faced two major internal obstacles. First, military spending tended to be technologically intensive and hence its employment stimulating effect was decreasing. Ironically, they observed, the huge military outlays of today may even be contributing substantially to an increase of unemployment: many of the new technologies which are byproducts of military research and development are also applicable to civilian production, where they are quite likely to have the effect of raising productivity and reducing the demand for labor. Second, expansion of weapons of total destruction and the devastating effects of the use of more powerful weapons, could be expected to generate a growing rebellion against the permanent war economy at all levels of society, as people perceived the dangers of global barbarism (or worse, annihilation)."
This article was written in October 2008 and dealt with Bush 43, but how has Obama's GWOT policy differed from W's?
The funny thing is that even though Obama is unleashing the dogs of war throughout the GOP still doesn't respect him as the article Hannity says Obama won't even use the term "war on terrorism" at
describes. If Obama adopted Bush 43's to appease the GOP it isn't working.
He can give a good speech, but words are cheep. In Obama's Nobel Peace Prize speech he said "And yet I would be remiss if I did not acknowledge the considerable controversy that your generous decision has generated. In part, this is because I am at the beginning, and not the end, of my labors on the world stage. Compared to some of the giants of history who have received this prize - Schweitzer and King; Marshall and Mandela - my accomplishments are slight."