And how exactly are you going to concur bunch of fucking militants? With fucking flowers and butterflies?
Sorry if my words offended you. Really.
And would you happen to have any data on how many people were killed by Taliban? Or how were women generally treated? Or what was the standard of living back then? And shouldn't all of us, let alone the US who is directly responsible for what is going on today do something about it?
Before I answer all of these, I note that none of them falsify what I originally wrote:
"I haven't and don't [blame previous doctrines on Obama], hence why I said "
escalating illegal war". Sending yet more troops over "in the name of peace" (!!!!) is a continuation of imperialism as a means of serving the political self-interests of those in power. And all vague blanket terms such as "peace" and "freedom" do is maintain enough domestic support for this war - and in doing so, the ruling elite tame any would-be opposition from within. It happens time and time again. Republican, Democrat, Autocrat, Bureaucrat.
They're all the fucking same."
I don't know how many people were killed under the Taliban. Women were treated disgracefully and still are. The Karzai regime, endorsed by the coalition, is a shambles. I'd need to do an extensive amount of research to get the full extent of living standards, but it's fair to say they were atrocious.
So all of this amounts to, at the very most, at the most hopeful: "The imperialist war in Afghanistan is the lesser of two evils."
And what
real progress has been made, or is being made, by this war? You can say "But how else do you want to go about it", but that's just a vague apology with no real weight.
Isn't his getting elected by promoting peace, hope and dedication to dialogue rather than maintaining iron fist toward other countries in the midst of the atmosphere neoconservatives were promoting, by relying on poking the voodoo doll of ENEMY non-stop in the eyes of public a great accomplishment?
So what can we take from any of this? His use of language?
US foreign policy does little to promote "peace" or "hope". It does the very opposite, for me. It
continues to be an aggressive, imperialist, jingoist superpower.
How can an imperialist war fought "in peace" suddenly become a thing of "hope"?
And how is it irrelevant? This is exactly how any process of that sort works. It is like you complain about the election where you knew nothing about the candidates, or who is up for it! Then what you'd be saying is what is irrelevant!
It's irrelevant who else was nominated because Obama
won it. I don't need to know who else was nominated because whether or not I could or would argue for somebody else winning it more than Obama does not change the symbolic shift it represents in international relations between the bougeois nations of Europe and the US. "Who should have won" might make for an interesting debate, but my issue isn't that Obama beat anybody else, or whether he was a
more deserving winner than candidate A or B, it's that he won it all, that he was even considered for it on such wanting evidence of objective achievement.
This is as much to do with Bush as it is with Obama; anybody of the US Democratic party could have been inaugurated and they would have been a potential candidate and possible/probable winner of the prize, just by not being George Bush.
I strongly disagree with you on that. I couldn't believe Bush got another four years with promoting fear to get elected. Kerry would remain a great example as to how not being Bush was never enough. Again I believe Obama made a great achievement and world was not the same after he managed victory in the '08 US election.
But you're talking about four years ago when Bush still had enough social sway to remain in office; Obama wouldn't have beat him four years ago. Which goes to show how severely little US politics actually change from party to party; one gets voted in only on the others' failures, and all the old crap accumulates from afresh.
Might we read this international gesture as "A Prize for Not Being Bush"? Yes indeed. It shows the other nations of Europe showing their support for Obama and thus sparking further hope in him on an international scale - "look, even Europe loves him!" But what it really is is a cynical endorsement of further US militarism.
