Obama at the UN: The arrogant voice of imperialism

[blindpig]

Obama at the UN: The arrogant voice of imperialism

President Obama delivered an empty and arrogant sermon to the United Nations Wednesday, laced with platitudes about “peace” that were designed to mask Washington’s predatory policies.

The American president received a tepid response from the assembled heads of state, foreign ministers and UN delegates. Not a single line in his speech evoked applause. The novelty of two years ago, when Obama made his first appearance before the body posing as the champion of multilateral-ism in contrast to Bush, has long since worn off. As the world quickly learned, changing the occupant of the White House did little to shift the direction of American foreign policy or curb the spread of American militarism.

The immediate purpose of Obama’s 47-minute address was to supplement a behind-the-scenes campaign of bullying and intimidation aimed at forcing the Palestinian Authority to drop its plan to seek a UN Security Council vote on recognition of Palestine as a sovereign member state.

Washington has vowed to veto any bid for Palestinian statehood if it comes to the Security Council, a move that would only underscore the real character of US imperialist policy in the Middle East and the hypocrisy of its claims to identify with the revolutionary upheavals of the Arab masses.

more....

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2011/sep2011/boun-s22.shtml

[newfie11]

1. Sad, America has come to this n/t

[defendandprotect]

2. +1 --

[Name removed]

5. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[SammyWinstonJack]

4. +2

[blindpig]

8. Ya know...

The only real change is that they are unable or disinterested in hiding it.

[leftstreet]

11. +1

[walerosco]

26. +1000

[defendandprotect]

3. KR

[pscot]

6. That's how it seemed to me

I guess the unreccers don't agree.

[Distant Observer]

7. I was ashamed of my President

[EFerrari]

9. Abbas got a lot of applause from the GA. n/t

[blindpig]

10. kick

[arikara]

12. K&R

Shouldn't hide it.

[Leopolds Ghost]

13. I thought the US supported Palestinian statehood and a two-state solution. n/t

[Dragonfli]

14. Don't know about the US, but it would appear Obama does not /nt

[Violet_Crumble]

19. It did as long as it thought there was no chance of the state being created n/t

[madamesilverspurs]

15. Oh for shit sake.

So Abbas, who wasn't elected to his post, doesn't get carte blanche with his demands. Nobody said the US doesn't support the two-state plan. Obama didn't say he doesn't support the idea. He did, however, make it clear that unless and until the Palestinians begin to adhere to the 1947 agreement there won't be anything more forthcoming. For starters, they can stop vowing to "throw all the Jews into the sea". And they can stop trying to erase the historical evidence of Jewish presence in the land for thousands of years. Abbas doesn't get a free pass any more than Arafat did.

-

[Dragonfli]

16. "Washington has vowed to veto any bid for Palestinian statehood" clear enough for me /nt

[rury]

17. President Obama supports Palestinian statehood

but wants a two-state solution worked out with Israel, not a United Nations mandate.
BUT HE SUPPORTS A PALESTINIAN STATE!
CLEAR ENOUGH FOR ME!

[EFerrari]

21. He supports United Nations mandates only when they are convenient.

Clear enough for anyone.

[Dragonfli]

23. He just said he would oppose it, keep contorting, the circus needs acts /nt

[Violet_Crumble]

22. So much is incorrect in that post...

1. Abbas was elected to his post. Elections have been delayed, but he's the one who was elected.
2. Applying for membership of the UN is not making a carte blanche demand. It's the only way to become a member of the UN.
3. Obama has threatened to veto the Security Council vote. He does NOT support a Palestinian state being created or being a member of the UN.
4. If there's to be adherence to the '1947 agreeement' that's a condition of statehood, then surely Israel's statehood should be removed from it?
5. The Palestinians do not vow to "throw all the Jews into the sea."
6. Considering it's Israel that's occupying the Palestinians, I'm not sure how they're managing to do anything like what you claim...

[blindpig]

29. Bollacks...

There is a very great difference between ending the Zionist State and "throwing the Jews into the sea". That is a total misrepresentation.

[white_wolf]

18. I can't say I'm surprised.

America has been an imperialist nations since at least the Spanish-American War, and the U.S. won't ever go against Israel, despite the fact that they are ruled by a brutal racist faction and half the cabinet positions seem to be held by center-right and even nationalist parties.

[blindpig]

25. Imperialists forever...

ask Native Americans.

Israel is the beachhead of western capital, for their services they are allowed much leeway.

[Kaleko]

27. That's the conclusion anyone I talk to outside of America has come to

long ago. It's as if the whole world knows this... except for the last willfully blind Yankee Doodle Dandies on earth.

[PurityOfEssence]

20. Yet, by the curse of the ultramoderate, he only made enemies

Extremist supporters of Israel regardless of anything still will see him as a threat. Palestinians will seem him as a threat. Everyone else will simply see him as an appeaser.

The settlements will go on, the repression will not stop, and he will wet his finger and hold it aloft to curry favor with those who hate him anyway.

To be fair, the Palestine question is incredibly complex, but this doesn't help either him or anyone else.

[K8-EEE]

24. Wait, the Socialists are mad at Obama?

Freepers, please take note!

[Arkana]

28. I'm surprised they didn't use the word "pigdog" anywhere in there.