Top Leaderboard, Site wide
Truthdig: Drilling Beneath the Headlines
June 23, 2017 Disclaimer: Please read.

Statements and opinions expressed in articles are those of the authors, not Truthdig. Truthdig takes no responsibility for such statements or opinions.

What’s Next for the Bill Cosby Sex-Assault Case?

Truthdig Bazaar
Occupy Nation

Occupy Nation

Todd Gitlin

more items

Email this item Print this item

Remaking the World in America’s Image

Posted on Dec 4, 2008

By William Pfaff

HEIDELBERG, Germany—U.S. President-elect Barack Obama has completed his national security team, and its composition confirms that nothing fundamental is likely to change in American foreign policy.

Square, Story page, 2nd paragraph, mobile
“Fundamental” is the key word, meaning change in the goals pursued and the assumptions that underlie policy. One expects an end to the blatant contempt for international law and institutions displayed by the Bush administration. The torture, illegal seizures of individuals and secret imprisonments, and flaunting of generally accepted norms of human rights will probably end, although the records of all the new appointees are not entirely clear on this subject.

However, the war on Muslim radicalism will go on. The evidence suggests that American policy under Obama will be a continuation of the neoconservative foreign policy of the Bush administration, given a human face.

According to Obama’s own intention to carry the war against al-Qaida into the Pakistan tribal territories, the current American attitude toward national sovereignty remains unchanged.

As early as 2003, Condoleezza Rice condemned the Westphalian system of state sovereignty as leading to competition and war, calling for its replacement by an alliance or federation of the democracies, under U.S. leadership, to keep order in the world.


Square, Site wide, Desktop


Square, Site wide, Mobile
The same idea was argued by John McCain in his presidential campaign, and Obama endorsed it. The preceding Reagan and Clinton administrations displayed little compunction about invading or bombarding small countries. (Ronald Reagan had to be stiffly reminded by Queen Elizabeth that she was the queen of Grenada, a Commonwealth country he had chosen to invade in 1983.) A Pentagon official recently said that sovereignty extends to what you can defend. Implied was that territory a country cannot defend is open to whatever the U.S. chooses to do there.

In June 2008, the Defense Department, acting on the authority of Robert Gates, issued a new version of its National Defense Strategy. This presented a list of requirements meant to compel removal of military, political and international legal obstacles to American attacks on terrorist targets, and to American interventions to replace regimes.

The New York Times last Sunday carried a major article based on information from an unnamed source among the Obama planners, who said that a “vastly expanded” number of military officers, diplomats and aid people will be prepared for projects dealing with the aftermath of conflict and to rebuild “failed states.”

The informant said “the U.S. and its allies (will) use their varied tools to build government capacity in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Lebanon, the Philippines and beyond. Grand strategists may imagine a new global architecture, but the real global architecture of the future will emerge organically from these day-to-day nation-building operations.”

According to Stephen Flanagan of the Center for Strategic and International Studies, planning includes “increasing the size of the State Department, building a civilian corps that can do development in dangerous parts of the world, creating interagency nation-building institutions, helping local reformers build governing capacity in fragile places like Pakistan and the Palestinian territories, and exporting American universities while importing more foreign students.”

Last summer, Secretary of State Rice declared that the Bush government was mistaken in its initial hostility to nation building. She wrote (in Foreign Affairs) that “democratic state building is now an urgent component of our national interest. ... It is absolutely clear that we will be engaged in nation building for years to come.” She said that this reflects “a uniquely American realism” that teaches “it is America’s job to change the world, and in its own image.”

The war on terror, which began in reaction to an attack on the United States by a small group of nationalist and Islamist Muslims, outraged by the presence of American military bases in close proximity to the Islamic holy places in Saudi Arabia, has now become a war against radicalism itself, disorderly states, other conflicts and failures in the non-Western world, poverty and social disorder (“breeding grounds” for terrorism), and “rogue nations,” meaning those that want to have nuclear weapons in order to deter attack by foreign enemies.

Simon Sefarty, a senior figure in the Washington policy community, listing what were “increasingly agreed” with the European allies (in summer 2008) to be the “nontraditional” threats to Europe and America, began with the threat of “terrorist groups of global reach and potential access to weapons of mass destruction,” and continued with “WMD diversification and proliferation, failed states, organized crime, access to energy, climate change, pandemics and more.”

He urged a “complex mixture of military and civilian capabilities along with a combination of institutional tools, both national and multilateral” to resolve the threats. His list left out resurgent superpowers (presumably traditional threats), but otherwise would seem to include the failings of most of the non-Western world.

This same war to make other states “into the American image” has been waged repeatedly during the last 50 years: in Vietnam, in Laos and Cambodia, in Nicaragua, in Iraq where “victory” (whatever that would be) still eludes the U.S., in Afghanistan in a war now spreading into Pakistan, in Somalia (through an Ethiopian proxy), and against Hezbollah and Hamas.

It invariably has failed, at heavy cost to the societies involved, and little or no benefit to the United States. The rule long ago empirically established is that intervention in other countries to remake them invariably inflames and sustains nationalist resistance to the invader. But Barack Obama and his team seem ready to try again.

Visit William Pfaff’s Web site at

© 2008 Tribune Media Services Inc.

New and Improved Comments

If you have trouble leaving a comment, review this help page. Still having problems? Let us know. If you find yourself moderated, take a moment to review our comment policy.

Join the conversation

Load Comments

By Sleeper, December 15, 2008 at 10:56 pm Link to this comment


I have a problem with you stating that an opinion is mine.  I stated a quote that was not mine.  There is much truth in that quote.

As for weapons of the firearm variety I may own a couple.  At one time I had more now I’m down to a 30-30 that is old my Grandmother gave it to me when I first started hunting.

We are told many things and the majority of the programing that comes from our media is false.  We say that Saddam was bad because he gassed his own people.  Guess who gave him the Gas.

Personally while in Beirut I was shot at by M-16’s on multiple occasions and a 50-cal machine gun once while I was bringing some things to a few friends on Guard Duty.  Guess where those weapons are made.

We invaded Iraq on lies trumped up with cherry picked intelligence that they knew was most likely unfounded.  Our problems with Iran resulted from our support of a Dictator (The Shaz).

I pointed out a white flash from artillery to a superior because it was the piece that was shooting in our perimeter.  Before that night was over I believe 35 were killed around the artillery position.  There was also an Israelli APC that was destroyed because it fired on one of our cobra’s.  The cobra took four rounds and the crew was lucky to make it back to the ship.

If I made a decission to kill It doesn’t require a gun.  Why would I do that?  I doubt I would do it to stop a neighbor from beating his wife.  She can choose to leave after taking a few lumps.

Our enemy is listening to our telephone conversations and reading our emails.  They get good intelligence but they can still choose to ignor it if they decide they can make a larger profit selling weapons to both sides & help their close friends rip off taxpayers while they commit numerous crimes they hide in Secrecy.  I bet W will preemptively Pardon himself and his crew of criminals.

I was in a place I did not want to be standing for peace while many of these criminals were involved with some Israelli criminals illegally selling arms to Iranians even though it was not legal.

The Marine Barracks was blown up by RDX Rag Bombs that had to be sold to Hezbollah.  They were most likely Israelli and U.S. citizens that sold these explosives.  Our intelligence knows where they came from but still won’t tell us the TRUTH.

False Flag operations are not new, but I consider it Treason to murder your own citizens for the Blood Money to be gained by being a such a sleaze bag.

Report this

By Ga, December 15, 2008 at 6:24 pm Link to this comment


What would cause you to use your gun(s) against someone else?

I assume one answer would be, “In self-defense.”

But, would you use your gun(s) to make your neighbor stop beating his wife?

The latter was why we invaded Iraq: because Saddam was a “Bad man.” (Well, not really why, but that is what all the chickenhawks now say.)

The problem with that (your) mentality—that there is a bogeyman out to get us all so we must arms ourselves—is that it is no longer true.

Do you really think that somewere back in 2000 or so a group of men in the Middle East sitting around in a hookah bar suddenly learned that there was Freedom in America?

(“Yo, Abdullah, look here in the paper. It says there is Freedom in America!” “No! Yous gotta be kidding me!” “I kid not. Says so right here!” “No way! By Allah, we must do something! Lets bomb them or something!” “Ya, we hate Freedom! Lets bomb them!”)


Report this

By Sleeper, December 9, 2008 at 9:05 am Link to this comment


I’m not quite sure why, but your last comment reminds me of a quote I read in a cruise book.  It was for C Co. 1/8th Marines the ones that were in the field not in the Barracks in Beirut in 1983.

“When civilized man lays down his weapons and declares he will no longer fight, he will surely be entrapped and enslaved by the uncivilized.”

The author in unknown to me.  We are the World and we don’t need to create an enemy.  I don’t buy it.  We don’t need to spend to hoard the fossil fuels.  There is plenty of energy that makes the world go round.  We can harness it.

We have become the childish Bullies of the World even to ourselves, but I will keep my Guns.

Report this

By bachu, December 9, 2008 at 2:51 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

It is mighty fine plan and I see no reason why it should not be put into practice if one can afford it. Obviously the American people think they can and have endorsed it by electing another war monger.

Report this

By abdo, December 8, 2008 at 10:13 pm Link to this comment

AS he said,Obama, you can put lip stick on a pig and it will still be A PIG. Barack, You Can put fancy names ‘lipstick” on imperial schemes but they will continue to be imperial schemes, and even worth they will continue to fail.

Report this

By Sleeper, December 8, 2008 at 7:48 am Link to this comment

Your reply proves my point.

The U.N. is a Global authority.  It states that GENOCIDE is a CRIME.  Henceforth A POLICE ACTION is REQUIRED to STOP IT.

You throw insults without reading the group of comments.  War is declared to expand the power of the Executive branch and it reaches into the domiciles of citizens.  They all go together and are more concise then what flows off your fingers.

This constant War Policy has resulted in DEATHS of citizens because Police in this nation no longer follow Due process.  Warrants are not required to be signed by a Judge who has 4 years undergraduate school, 4 years Law School, and practiced as a Lawyer then been appointed by a governing authority.

Someone with this much therory might be able to decide if the evidence presented to him or her has been stacked.  A lapdog who wants to be part of a team that has been given a few weeks training as a “Justice of the Peace” probably could be allowed to marry people, but I disagree with giving them the power to sign a piece of paper and bust in a door weilding weapons without first delivering the Warrant in hand. 

No Knock Search Warrants are Unconstitutional.  People have died because Confidential Informants (Known Criminals) have lied and police have made mistakes, they have killed people because they kicked in the wrong Door.  This is Unamerican as far as I am concerned.

Maybe you should grow up.  The world is a little wider then the narrow focus you place on it.

Report this

By cyrena, December 8, 2008 at 4:09 am Link to this comment

Sorry Sleeper…

Your response that Genocide should involve a police reaction makes it seem like you’re reading and writing in your sleep.

Is this a reply to something? It reads like gibberish, unless I’m missing something.

Start with this, just for basic info. Then maybe if you’re really interested in the difference between law on the books, and law in action,as well as the enforcement of international treaties and agreements, we can chat more.

Report this

By purplewolf, December 7, 2008 at 9:14 pm Link to this comment

Interesting title:

The question should be, does the rest of the world want to be remade in Americas image?

And that answer is NO!

From what I have read and heard from people in those countries that we try to redesign in our image, they want nothing to do with the West and it’s lifestyle.

Report this

By dihey, December 7, 2008 at 5:58 pm Link to this comment

Does this mean that a Pakistani or Afghani non-combatant about to die from a missile hit will say: “thank you Allah that I am killed by a human face”?

Report this

By Bilejones, December 7, 2008 at 3:44 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Having one vicious warmongering thief abroad in in the world is more than sufficient.

Report this

By Eso, December 7, 2008 at 10:33 am Link to this comment

As one who has citizenship on both sides of the Atlantic (I have returned to its European side), and as one who is not in the least happy with his experiences as an American, upon my return to the East, I began to question the history of the West. While I do not agree with everything said by Anatoly Fomenko, the Russian mathematician and historian, I think his arguments are worthy of greater attention.

If Fomenko’s arguments are anywhere near the truth, the conclusion must be that the history of the West is a pseudo history, an imposition of a false chronology on top of a false interpretation of the development of culture and civilization. If this is so, the lie is serious enough to meet with a comeupance.

The West has attempted to escape its comeupance with a theory of “growth” for growth’s sake. Grow, grow, grow. We are now growing debt. The presses that grow money are running hot. The two billion people who populated the world when I was a teen have grown to seven billion. I just don’t see how planet Earth can take being raped by such numbers any longer.

So, I hope that the “bailout” will not work. [I just bought 4 bails of hay for a neighbor who cannot afford it, but who sustains her life on keeping alive her only cow.] I look forward to real chaos—though I probably will not live to experience its full force. I hope that there will be real pain, enough of pain to cause us to rethink the premises of further “growth” and what makes for a sustainable community of human beings on a planet bedded for recovery and a return to health.

Report this

By Sleeper, December 7, 2008 at 8:24 am Link to this comment

Even a reaction to Genocide should be a police action. 

We have no history of just doing what ever we please because we make it a practice to bring along a lapdog who wants to belong.  We send them to school for a few weeks and bless him with the power to reveiw evidence.  How can he make a decision with potential lethal circumstances based on how we have munipulated our known criminals to ensure that a crime is indeed happening or has happened even if the CI’s introduce the drugs to the seen make reoccuring sales and get everyone high.

Our reaction to Genocide have been reactions to a sustained public outcry.

Report this

By cyrena, December 7, 2008 at 7:35 am Link to this comment

Sleeper asks…

•  “…Can we enforce the law by breaking the LAW?...”
Funny you should ask this Sleeper, because while I know that context is everything, there are in fact circumstances, specifically in terms of International Law, when that does indeed have to happen. Laws are broken in order to uphold the laws.
One example (probably the primary and most frequent consideration) has to do with state sovereignty and events of genocide. Occurances of genocide are often veiwed from outside of the given state as domestic or civil issues that should by law be addressed by the heads and governments of those states, and outsiders can’t just go in uninvited to repair the damage.
More often than not however, the genocide is either being perpetrated by the state actors themselves, or those connected to them; or the state/government is powerless to do anything about it. And also more often than not, the state emphatically rejects any help from outsiders…particularly the US. Can’t much say that I blame them. The US has a habit of acting unilaterally whenever there’s something in it for them, (Clinton and Bosnia) regardless of what the laws are, and turning a blind eye when there’s nothing in it for them, regardless of how many innocents are dying from massacres, rapes, and just the general mayhem and carnage associated with genocides.

So that’s a question that comes up all the time. Does one break the law, (by violating state sovereignty) in order to uphold/enforce the laws of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Genocide,  or not? That very contradiction has made the convention far less effective than was intended some 60 years ago when it was adopted.

I do get your own point here, but this is just an example of how context is everything in terms of enforcing the law. It becomes far more relative or even subjective than most of us believe the laws should be.

It means there are no easy answers, even in the language of the law.

Report this

By Sleeper, December 6, 2008 at 10:33 am Link to this comment

Sometime yesterday I was sent a link to Zeitgeist The Movie.  It contains approximately 13, 9 minute clips.  This is Part 7:

The first few parts concern religion and I believe the later parts are about the growth of the culture that has allowed this power to rise.  I can’t say for sure because I have not veiwed them yet.  Part 7 pertains to our discussion.

Report this

By Sleeper, December 6, 2008 at 8:53 am Link to this comment

The War on Terrorism and The War on Drugs would be better served as being Police actions.  They are only mentioned as Wars to allow extriordinary powers by the executive to spy on citizens, use more agents within the United States and to search, seize and imprison citizens without Due Process.

Where in the Constitution should a No Knock warrant be issued by a Justice of the Peace and not a full fledged Judge who can adaquately determine its validity and the credibility of the CI’s who are in trouble making statements so an agressive team can use it to break into a domicile weilding weapons and endangering lives.  Where does it allow for sneak and peak searches.  Can we enforce the law by breaking the LAW?

We can say our evidence is strong and we will pursue these criminals everywhere they may be.  In the case of the Towers we need a real investigation because those towers were not brought down by the impact of the aircraft or the jet fuel that burned off within 15 minutes.  There was a coverup and those who participated in the coverup are criminals who support the true terrorists.

Report this

By Folktruther, December 6, 2008 at 1:10 am Link to this comment

The US power system underwent a political counterrevolution under the Bushites.  It was symbolized by the political fable of the War On Terrorism.  This counter revolution is being consolidated by Obama.  The tends to be a general astonishment on how quickly and how much he has sold out his campaign positions, but he may feel that it is better to do it earlier.

So the population must mobilize against him earlier.

Report this

By Sleeper, December 5, 2008 at 1:16 pm Link to this comment

My favorite quote is from the principal drafter of the Declaration of Independence.  He wrote this in a letter to a man named Benjamin Rush concerning the influence of the clery on his campaign to become the third President of the United States.  It was never presented to me in 12 years of public education.  I first read it when I visited Washington D.C. and gazed above his statue it is enscripted in a ring above his statue:

“I have stood before the alter of God and sworn eternal hostility toward all forms of tyrany over the minds of men”.

Thomas Jefferson

Corporate dictates and central authority had no place in this land.

Report this
prole's avatar

By prole, December 5, 2008 at 12:56 pm Link to this comment

This is actually quite good. A rare left perspective amid the kneejerk Obama cheerleaders that usually populate this site. Obviously it would be impossible - not to mention undesirable - “remaking the world in America’s image”, even if it was seriously intended. Since America hogs a disproportionately large share of the world’s natural resources, and belches out an even greater, disproportionately larger share of it’s waste, any wholesale attempt at “remaking the world in America’s image” would almost surely result in enviornmental collapse.  And any attempt at “remaking the world in America’s image” in finance and credit markets would lead to an economic collapse. Sharing the wealth equitably - or the costs - is not what America is all about, domestically or internationally. If “it is America’s job to change the world, and in its own image.”, then it is most likely to mean changing the world to conform to the image of what America (or its ruling class) thinks it should be; not to enjoy the same power and privilege as America itself, i.e. in “an alliance or federation of the democracies, under U.S. leadership, to keep order in the world”. So all the rest is just a smokescreen.
      To embark on a “complex mixture of military and civilian capabilities along with a combination of institutional tools, both national and multilateral” is unsustainable in the current circumstances. Who’s to pay for it? We’re broke. “It is absolutely clear that we will” not be able to afford to “be engaged in nation building for years to come.” It shows but again, how delusional power-drunk policymakers are. This reflects “a uniquely American” un-realism that can’t shed exorbitant, world-remaking chimeras even when up to its elbows in the shambles of Iraq and the financial markets. Fiddling while Rome burns.  But even if some still dream, “it is America’s job to change the world” at least it won’t be rancid Rice’s job anymore, thankfully. It would be somewhat comforting to think we’ve seen the last of that imperialist aggressor, double proof that to be black or female - or both - doesn’t make you any less dangerous or predatory. Still, “a war against radicalism” will certainly be engaged in for years to come, just as it has for centuries past. And not just - or even chiefly - the Muslim variety. Political radicalism on the home front will be just as much under fire from the Barackistas as from the Bushites. So yes, Obama ‘will stay the course’, for those still asking such foolish questions. The course set by Dubya. It is all too depressingly true that,“The evidence suggests that American policy under Obama will be a continuation of the neoconservative foreign policy of the Bush admin”. And it’s just as true that “the records of all the new appointees are not entirely clear” even on the subject(s) of “torture, illegal seizures of individuals and secret imprisonments, and flaunting (sic) of generally accepted norms of human rights”. With Obama Copacabana you can never be sure of anything. He’s even trickier than Dick Nixon. Although we probably can be sure that Obama “will carry the war against al-Qaida into the Pakistan tribal territories, the current American attitude toward national sovereignty remains unchanged”. Once again, Obama will ‘stay the course’. The bad things stay the same, the better things are iffy. Obama like Bush and Rice will be using U.S. leadership, to “keep order in the world” no doubt by displaying as “little compunction about invading or bombarding small countries”. Once again staying to the same course as his hero Ronald Reagan and his personnel agent, Bill Clinton. “This same war to make other states into the image” of what America wants them to be - and not what they want to be themselves. It should be clear now that Barack Obama and his team deserves an anti-war movement every bit as much as George W did.

Report this

By Sleeper, December 5, 2008 at 11:07 am Link to this comment

These Global Imperial Entities that have bought their way into running our government need regulation by the people.  They want none, but when it come to allowing access to our markets we should make the rules.

We can affect the world and bring about a green economy. 

Will a new administration stand for PEACE?  Only God Knows. 

Will we demand our Civil Liberties from this Empire?  Only God Knows.

Do we think that All Men are Created Equal enough to demand it?  Only God Knows.

Can we even conceive what it would mean to be “All In”?  Only God Knows.

Will a Central Government that is sponsored by International Corporate Interrests Ever Represent:  “WE THE PEOPLE”
History tends to indicate.  NOT

Report this

By felicity, December 5, 2008 at 10:02 am Link to this comment

C. Rice made the alarming statement a few years ago that, “American values are universal” - to which I reply I certainly hope not.

Spreading our ‘values’ has resulted in and will always result in the costly and, in the end, futile management of catastrophic failures.

America says she wants to democratize the world in her image, but that’s a ruse, a lie. What she really wants is a world controlled by capitalists created in her image and subservient to her economic interests.

Report this

By Sleeper, December 5, 2008 at 9:34 am Link to this comment


What you describe is how the powers of this nation have grown.  It is importantant to remember that this nation also was born out of rebellion to Imperial Rule.  Corporate Influence grew as a necessary evil.  There was a need for commerce as there is in every society. 

Our birth was spawned on the idea of rebellion to Empire.  I think it was 54 men of all social statures who signed The Declaration of Independence and thereby committed Treason to the Crown.  They were definately “ALL-IN” in that game.

Today as always in the neocon wet dream, We are in a state of War.  Just pick which War you want to form a discussion about.  It is a neccessity as part of allowing a Global entity to shape public thought through the media and secretly allow it access to your every conversation or email to aid in its programming.  It becomes necessary to form an army of mercenaries and place them within your society.  Of course, what they do never happens officially.  It just happens.

I wish that would change rather then be given some cosmetic surgery.  The chances are slim.

“Blessed Are The Peacemakers”

Report this

By elianita55, December 5, 2008 at 9:10 am Link to this comment

As the year goes on Barack Obama has made less and less use of his original anti-war rhetoric, the one that allowed him to so neatly differentiate himself from Hillary Rodham Clinton in the primaries. In an effort to appeal to the more centrist segments of the Democratic party and the American population and in order to not seem weak on terrorism, his stance has grown more and more hawkish, especially on Afghanistan.

The recent terror strikes in Mumbai unfortunately will give credence to this stance and will legitimize recent American military action on the Afghanistan-Pakistan border, replicating the 9/11 chain of reaction that believes that any action is justifiable if it is done under the pretext of the so-called war on terror.

Report this

By kloe, December 5, 2008 at 8:17 am Link to this comment


Your comments are spot on and get to the root of America’s problem with inheriting colonialism from the 19th and 18th (and even further back) centuries and fusing them with an industrialized corporatized ruled society founded from the very beginning on the conquering of natives and indigenous societies the world over.  How can anything be expected to be changed when neither the government leaders or worse, the majority of the citizenry refuse to even acknowledge these facts and do some serious self-examination on a national collective level.  If that serious self-examination ever did take place only then would we indeed start to change how we treat others within our own society as well as the rest of the world.

Report this
Paul_GA's avatar

By Paul_GA, December 5, 2008 at 7:54 am Link to this comment

They’ll keep on going their way, bombing the daylights out of countries, invading them, and inflicting “collateral damage” (and thus making new enemies, and giving them new excuses to bomb and invade), while getting Americans killed in futile neo-imperialistic wars, and spending great gobs of fiat money to finance them, until they’ve either conquered the planet or bankruptcy and ruin come to this country.

Which will it be, America? The choice is yours ...

Report this

By yellowbird2525, December 4, 2008 at 11:57 pm Link to this comment

THIS is democracy. Our nation was set up for all taxes to be paid for by profits from big businesses. The people paid a 1 x tax after the war; then it was said they COULD PAY on a VOLUNTARY BASIS if they so CHOSE to do so. Instead, the same folks who owned the plantations back in slavery days, said hey hey hey here’s some $ let’s do it THIS way; Corrupt to the core: remember: Obama’s words: to be able to start a business without having to pay a bribe. THE PEOPLE must PAY! is democracy; where the politicians RULE; everything is done for GREED, & NOTHING is for social need. Previous sheriff’s now county commissioners were the persons to go to for drugs; the DA likes young teens, like govenors; around 14; no one ever presses charges; cuz you can do whatever you want to & you will never be prosecuted. Foods are chemically treated to cause harm to the nth degree; letting a child eat a hot dog causes 300% more likely to get cancer, of which they deny treatments readily available in other countries cuz they make so much money. THIS is what they are fostering off onto the other countries. THIS is the “dictatorship” worse than Hussain: per the Iraqi’s who had no links to Al Queada at all: false pictures; lies, deception, deceit. EVERY knee is to bow at THEIR feet: THIS is “democracy” and “they have the culture for it” as “they have gotten away with it in the USA for years”;

Report this

By kloe, December 4, 2008 at 10:15 pm Link to this comment

Another excellent article which goes right to the point of clearly articulating that not much is going to “change” other than perhaps “putting on a human face” to invading countries and turning cultures on their heads in attempt to modernize and democratize them.  I didn’t vote for Obama or McCain and certainly am not surprised by the continuation of elected government officials serving the corporate oligarchs but, I still can’t help feeling disappointed by Obama.  I guess a part of me still had that false childhood hope that he really would be different than the previous administrations.  Oh well, I’ll just keep voicing my objections and voting for Ralph Nader and/or other third party candidates who have a true track record of “change” and confronting international and domestic policies that are clearly meant to maintain the power of the corptocracy we live in.  What a disappointment.

Report this

By Fadel Abdallah, December 4, 2008 at 10:06 pm Link to this comment

I simply agree!

There will be no change under the sun. It’s not an issue of changing the name, color or party of the president; it’s the system based on crooked mentality, arrogance and ignorance about the world in which America only makes 2.5 of its population. It is even a psychic matter rooted in the very foundation of America as a colonialist entity built on the shed blood of millions of the natives! I don’t know about any level of technology, materialist progress or even political genius that can permanently change the cycle of history once set in motion.

What’s clear to me is that the cyclical theory of history, explained by Ibn Khaldun, is correct. America as a concrete materialist entity soared high during an opportunistic weakness of others. However, she bore within herself the seeds of her own destruction, the signs of which are only clear to wise people who can see beyond the gimmicks of politics and politicians.

“And when We resolve to destroy a locality, We decree for its privileged rich, living in opulent luxury, to spread corruption on earth, making it susceptible for Our punishment; then We destroy it utterly.” (God speaking in the Qur’an: 17:16)

This happened to all human so-called civilizations, including that of the Arab-Muslims of the Middle Ages when they contacted the disease of materialism and luxury!

Dear reader: If you don’t believe in a Supreme God, please don’t jump at me! Just consider that I am using “God” for the LAW OF CAUSE AND EFFECT, for I happened to believe that God was The First Cause; thus He/She determines the Effects over all things according to established Laws of Equity and Absolute Justice that are part of His/Her Essence.

Report this

By Muscleboy, December 4, 2008 at 9:32 pm Link to this comment


PNAC: Project for a New American Century formed out of a band of fascists, neocons, some overtly dual citizen Israelis and other psychopaths declared we must have a new Pearl Harbor to launch and offensive against the Muslims… specifically started by overthrowing the Iraqi government.  The people that formed PNAC claimed in a letter announcing their intentions that it was an effort to weaken the geopolitical power of Syria by removing the government of Iraq.  That is weaken the geopolitical power against the state of Israel.  That’s why they did 9/11 to motivate a virtual state of martial law and allow Bush to invade Afghanistan to secure the oil pipeline for Unical which the current government of Afghanistan wanted more money for than Unical was willing to pay.  And of course invade Iraq and remove it’s government.  BUT the war on terror was really just an Israeli/international Zionist effort to pit the West against the Arabs thereby aiding the power of Israel.  It was begun much earlier by players like Donald Rumsfeld who used stories about the Russians (then Soviets) working with so-called radical Muslims to try to push the USA to begin efforts at weakening Muslims.  Of course the CIA quickly came out and said “Hey Donald we made up these stories about the Russians as part of our cold war efforts against the USSR.  There isn’t a shred of truth to them.” Well Donald went ahead and printed the lies as if they were truth anyway.  Didn’t work until the moronic devil Bush got into power and the Neocons finally got the power they wanted.  These efforts by Donald and others to push Western military to go against Arabs have been going on for decades.  It wasn’t until Carlyle that and GW Bush that they made any progress.  PNAC also seeking to invite the Defense industrial complex on board promised massive increases in defense spending.  I’m not sure about Obama but if he is anything he’s intelligent enough to understand what is going on.  I am still left with a glimmer of hope.

Just how wrong so many people are about the truth.

Report this

By Thepeacenik, December 4, 2008 at 9:05 pm Link to this comment

Obama’s war policy is absurd. The US should simply remove all forces from overseas; and use the funds to create a international service program to help the poor— if he really wanted to end —world war—conflicts in a peaceful way.

Obama’s war policy will fail; because “fear” will always be in the world. Fear is a perception and an emotional state; that cannot be resolved by bombs; but can be eliminated by spirituality, and a non-violent revolution in a persons being.

Report this

By P. T., December 4, 2008 at 9:01 pm Link to this comment

The U.S. ruling class has not given up on putting world energy supplies under the control of U.S. imperialism, regardless of the blowback.

Report this

By John Lowell, December 4, 2008 at 8:31 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

“The evidence suggests that American policy under Obama will be a continuation of the neoconservative foreign policy of the Bush administration, given a human face.”

When you are prepared to do, “everything, everything” to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons, you’re prepared to ignite a nuclear war. What possible interest could the American people have anywhere in the world that would proffer that as an eventuality? I’m afraid that the “human face” most likely to explain that “interest” to us is that of President Emanuel.

Report this
Right Top, Site wide - Care2
Right Skyscraper, Site Wide
Right Internal Skyscraper, Site wide

Like Truthdig on Facebook