Thank Goodness.
--- abu hartal <abuhartal at hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> Obama has not sabre-rattled against Pakistan, he has
> not threatened to invade and occupy Musharraf's
> Pakistan; he has not threatened to carpet bomb
> Pakistani troops. He said he would act against al
> Qaeda infiltration only if the Pakistani government
> would not. Good for him. He is proving that
> anti-terrorism does not imply colonial occupation.
> Even a couple of years ago, he did not say that he
> would oust a Taleban like regime were it to take
> power in Pakistan without Security Council
> authorization and/or as simple preventative measure
> (that he is the only candidate who does not support
> the Bush doctrine--regime change is legitimate
> without UN Security Council authorization and
> imminent threat which such a victory would be to
> India; almost all Obama advisors want to restore US
> participation in international bodies as did Kerry).
>
> Obama's position on Pakistan has been
> mis-represented by Carrol Cox, John McCain, and
> Adolph Reed who is unfortunately sitting this one
> out. And I can't see how a willingness to confront a
> Taleban nuclear weapon wielding government in
> Pakistan were it to take power deserves our
> criticism.
>
> The real question is whose foreign policy is most
> likely to prevent that from happening. The
> McCain/Clinton policy of using Pakistani troops in
> indiscriminate air strikes against Afghani civilians
> is the real danger here.
>
> So to the extent that Musharraf's regime has been
> destabilized by cooperation with the US war against
> civilians in Afghanistan, then why is Obama taking
> US responsibility for strikes a bad thing? Why is
> his concern for civilian death in Afghanistan and
> more humanitarian vision for US policy in
> Afghanistan a bad thing? See
> http://www.thenation.com/blogs/thebeat?pid=224928
>
> There is only one candidate who has consistently
> expressed an interest in innocent civilian Muslim
> and Arab lost to our catastrophic foreign policy.
> American racism gets in the way of seeing Obama's
> political and moral superiority. And I mean here not
> only anti black American racism (important of
> course) but also American racist disregard for
> Muslim life. It would be a scandal to sit this one
> out.
>
> Obama has also not said that he would bomb Iran
> without UN Security authorization and without a real
> imminent threat. That he is different from Clinton
> here has been obscured by Tariq Ali. In fact Obama
> is the only candidate who promises to make it most
> unlikely that military action will be taken against
> Iran which has shown many times an interest in a
> diplomatic solution to regional problems. He alone
> refused to give Bush authorization to carry out
> strikes. Why is this not enough to campagin hard for
> his election?
>
>
> Now yes as part of his anti terrorism platform,
> Obama has said that he will not negotiatiate with
> Hizbollah and Hamas. But he is the only candidate
> promising direct aid to the Palestinian people (as
> well as Iraqi civilians). He has also been under
> relentless attack for hardness towards Israel. His
> middle name is Hussein, he was educated in a
> madrassa, he may have a militant cousin, he is
> black. Yet he has kept advisors in his inner circle
> who are many times more progressive towards the
> Palestinians than anyone in Clinton's circle, to say
> nothing of McCain's; one has criticized Israeli
> tactics in Lebanon as counter-productive. No such
> word from Clinton's or McCain's advisors. He has
> faced up to racism the best one could expect, and
> perhaps he will capitulate. His advisors acknowledge
> the threat posed by AIPAC to his candidacy in spite
> of his important and defensible commitment to
> Israeli security from rocket attacks.
>
> Yet if one is serious about improving the conditions
> of the people suffering the most, one should prefer
> Obama over Clinton and McCain.
>
> >From what I have heard Obama has spoken much more
> strongly than Clinton about restoring the writ of
> habeas corpus for illegal enemy combatants and
> ending the torture of them. Yet he is the most
> serious candidate about protecting innocents from
> terrorism.
>
> Abu Hartal
>
_________________________________________________________________
> Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger!
> Download today it's FREE!
>
http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/
> ___________________________________
>
http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>
____________________________________________________________________________________ Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your home page. http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs