This is in response to this thread http://www.sajha.com/sajha/html/openThread.cfm?forum=122&threadid=56294#557335

Nell you made the points but for sure there are counterpoints too. Take the another side of the coin.

Israel has a nuclear weapon but not openly confessed it. It can surely reach any place in the Arab world. The tension is been boiling from 1967. America is just not third party in the mid-east crisis. What about Iran's right to self-defence. It has every right to develop nuclear plants for peaceful purpose and nuclear weapon for self-defence. However, it could only be disguise but pricipally it has every right to do so. Let's not digress.

Pakistan's internal problems have always created dire-situation there. The pro American policy of General Musharaff brought the wrath of erstwhile Taliban government. Surely Al Qaeda has created problem there. But what worries me more is the rise of fundamentalist and extremist there. It is sure that the area would be the new cradle for extremism(!=terrroism). The country,especially western pakistan would be perennial news-maker. Surely, America's indulgement has been incentive for hard-liners.

China has softened its rhetoric rather than declaring new threats because it doesn't want to taint its immaculate record on '08 Olympics. Taiwan is an ally of US and has been buying weapons from it. China on the other hand claims Taiwan as its integral part to be reunited with mainland.Though there is no immediate chance of showdown, the tension has made the East Asia a conflict zone- taking into account the complexity of relation between North-South Korea, Korea-Japan, Japan-China. S.Korea and Japan are allies of US and they harbor a big contingent of US soldiers.

Russia has planned new military programs. It has increased its budget to its military. The old bombers have come out of mantlepiece and have been flying to airspace of Japan, over the Europe and even near to the US naval ships. The money from the Oil and Gas has helped them a lot. America and NATO allies have a plan to install a anti-missile defence system in Czech republic and Poland . Also, some former Soviet states have joined NATO. This makes Russia vulnerable and is a threat to them because of the presence of Nato in its backyard.Though America says the missile defence system is to counter the threat of ICBMs(ballistic missile) from rogue states like Iran and North Korea, Russia is not going to buy the arguement. It's not surprising that it has programs to bolster its military might because it feels threatened.

Now, Kenya has problems because of a simple philosophy: politicians want power. Like Nepal Kenya is multi-ethnic country. Unfortunately, the election fiasco has moved to racial tension.

Darfur is a genocide. There should be no illusion. China's support to Sudan has saved Sudan from UN sanction and action. Slowly, China is realizing the gravity of the situation. It's all for OIL. The US and other European countries don't have a strong stand as it should have been because they don't want to irk China.

UN has its own inherent weakness. It is not an effective organization. Remember, any veto wielding country can block any critical proposal in Un. Its bureaucracy is notorious as an money spending machine that generates little output. The UN is sure a police but more like the police from Bollywood movie that comes late after much damage has been done. It's not proactive but a reactive body. It needs change- from top to bottom.

Of course Islamophobia is on the rise and has encroached the physical and mental space all over the world.There is more myth than the substance. There is wide-spread hatred of US in Islamic world-chiefly due to its support to Israel.The hatred and the distrust needs to be bridged. As a result, humanity is at stake.

By now you should have realized the obvious. America is the Greatest Common Factor of all the problem. America has been damned for doing and damned for not doing too. It is thus imperative that America needs a leader who can judge for the benefit of the world, who can ease the tension of the Muslim world, who can understand the pain of Africa, who allays the fear of Russia and respects it as a positive force of the world, who can talk direclty to China and not rub it wrong way,who  is sensitive to the people of different race and color. As of now, America is the only force that can be reckoned  as Superpower. Of course, as of Nepali saying -honey and hand licking- it does have added benefit but it deserves that.

We need an American president who is able to accomplish all the above-mentioned thing. I think Barack Obama as a person best suitable for that position now because of his unique heritage(Kenyan Muslim father, white mother, black wife), his early years spent in Indonesia and his ablity to unite people. Just see his insights, he will apply discretion for the betterment of the whole world.

I am hopeful he happens to be the leader many people have trusted.

Can he achieve what we are looking for ?

Yes he can !

I listen to his open ended speeches and am left with too many questions...He dwelves into every scenario and problems which every low and middle class American faces today.  He talks about the hardships but NO SOLUTIONS to any of his statements.  I've read a lot of articles on him and I have listened to his speeches BUT I still am unable to connect the dots here.  There is no solution but one thing that surely is there is the voice in unison asking for change.  Change what?  Rather, Change but how should be asked!  This is the main factor that has been unable to sway me in his favor.

Though the guy does have charisma and public speaking eloquence, with all the promises he's making, I'd say that he'd end up being a one-term President as there is no way on earth he'd be able to do what he's seeking.  The main points: He wouldn't be able to start any progress on the withdrawl from Iraq within the first 2 years he's in office (the stakes are ginormous as TOO much has been invested already to come out with a losing proposition and whats more, he'd need congress approval which I doubt he'd be able to garner).  The economy will be in its business cycle downtrend as the Wall Street binge-party that lasted artificially for years has finally brought about its hang-over (sub-prime, the upcoming derivatives market crash as per many articles circulating all around: Soc Gen, Barings are all examples, the US Treasury's downgrading by reknowned Credit Raters which will tighten the already tight credit crunch, etc.), this slowdown will cause a major problem in his tenure.  Next, the USD is still going to hang around its level it currently is in...On a more interesting note, if history repeated itself, the tension with Iran would bring about a weaker $ than we have today (USD has lost 60%+ of its value against EUR and GBP ever since the War in Iraq's talks first started around mid 2002).  Can the US afford a weaker $ anymore??  No way!!  I'd say that if Iran does indeed start its nuclear program and the US finds out, there is no way Obama would turn a blind eye..And given Iran's history, they ain't gonna stop.  All in all, the 2008 Presidency is exactly what ANY hopeful candidate should avoid.  Mark these words: The incumbant will lose the 2012 elections for drowning the economy in more debt, bringing about double digit inflation due to a more weaker $, rampant unemployment (equals rise in crime and population) and ultimately making us all reside in a weaker and poorer US of A.

If conspiriacy theories are to hold, being a black man, he'd go down in history as being the lone scape-goat to the 4 years of hell the US economy is going to go through (thanks to the Bush administration raping us all dry for the past 8 years). And that will be the end of any Non-White who will ever be elected for office. BTW, after his term the economy is bound to rise up the business cycle (as it cannot last forever) and when the white man takes over, the sweet ride of plenty will be blamed on his ingenuity!! The Senior Bush and Clinton's first term comes into mind here where the rise in the economy due to fiscal spending brought about by the Bush Administration during Desert Storm lagged to benefit the Clinton years...Clinton became the unassumed or unworthy hero and was heralded an economic genius with Greenspan. C'mon, peeps needs to read behind the whole fiscal policy (including monetary swayed by the war propaganda) that took place during the Desert Storm era.

With all that said, whosoever wins the Democratic front, the fuggin Republicans will win in the end...They've made no promises to the public and it seems they still wanna keep raping us all. So much for having either a woman or a black man as they both could amount to being only a one-term player!!

Yes, we can...More likely it should be: Yes, we got Punk'd!!

Samsara,
               It's not surprising that people have questioned his ability. It's their right and most importantly their duty to inquire a person whom they may trust with the country's reins. What many people think is that they have only seen the attractive wrapper but not the content. It's true with every candidate. One thing that at least looks good with Obama is that he is a charismatic wrapper !
The oft-repeated message of CHANGE and HOPE somewhat looks commonplace but I hope by no means becomes a cliche of empty rhetoric to bait people dismayed by the status quo.

Where is the BEEF ?
From the day one, his policies are there on his website. These days he has started giving detailed speeches to appease the demand of the blue collared workers who are more concerned with the economic package than the  'empty rhetoric'. It is worthwhile to note that he distributed his detailed policies paper to the workers in Wisconsin. They are 40 pages compared to Clinton's 17 (and it's true that more pages don't mean a better policy).

Trash to the Table ?
All the conspiracy theories and the negativities to me are the trashes brought to the table. Though they are concerned, it would had been better if the statements had risen above the place of propaganda.

It is true again that the current administration is fraught with many problems. Whoever, Mr Bush Jr. passes the baton would have the challenging days ahead. It is presumptuos to see Obama as a president but I am very much hopeful. And yes we got Punk'd  ; I am basking in it's glory.

 

Yup bhakunde, though I've not jumped into the Obama bandwagon as yet, I still feel that no matter who comes our victorious on the democratic side, the Republicans are gonna end up the real winners (as there is no way the Dems are gonna get a 2nd term even if they win this one...see my economic reasons above).  The only way for Barry Obama and Hill to redeem themselves once in the White House would be to have Bush face a trial for the woes brought about to humanity (or atleast start a motion to do just that).  The world outisde the US would love that and this would indeed be a blessing for our foreign affairs...hahahhaha  All in all, too much of utopian talks from my side! 

 

natyavarual, I've been reading your posts here for time immemorial and the words seems to bounce off my skull for some reason....It seems to me that you're translating your Nepali grammatical structure directly into english.  Could you just put your views across in layman's terms instead of being a living theasaurus??  That would make all the difference, dude.

I didn't see anything substantial in your post that could make me believe that Obama is the right candidate for the job. I saw basically the same thing that I have being hearing being trumpeted over and over again, which is trust Obama.

Obama - U.S. senator (3 yrs). State senator (8 yrs), Community organizing (2-3 yrs). Office work (2 yrs). Law school, lawyering.

John McCain - U.S. senator (21 yrs). U.S. congressman (4 yrs). U.S. Navy (22 yrs, including 5½ yrs as a prisoner of war).

After seeing the numbers above, why should I trust Obama and not McCain? As a layman, should I just go with the young gun who said that he will bomb Pakistan without understanding the fracture this will do to the world by destabilizing a nuclear nation?

My answer is no. I like Obama, but he is not ready.

Nell,

       You are free as a bird to support any candidate. To each his own.

See, I am not here to proseltize anyone and nor have I any intention to do so. BTW who told you that Obama has plans to attack Pakistan. Please cite a source if the material is controversial.

I started with Hillary Clinton, because she was the name familiar to my mind but as time passed by, her influence faded. The more I hear Obama ,better I find him as the right candidate. Again my personal preferences. I have no personal grudge against McCain but Republican's ideology of conservatism simply doesn't click my mind.

Experience is like a comb, you get after your hairs have fallen.

Bhakunde, this had been all over the radio and even McCain touched on this recently.  See below from the article:

"Obama said if elected in November 2008 he would be willing to attack inside Pakistan with or without approval from the Pakistani government, a move that would likely cause anxiety in the already troubled region."

http://www.reuters.com/article/domesticNews/idUSN0132206420070801

 

 

And that is Barack Obama.

Natyavarual, I is not understanding you ok?  I is not comprehend you agrezi hi-fi words...Please going out of here ok, FOB.  hahahahahaa

Samsara,
                 I have read and heard Obama speaking about attacking Pakistan. Today too at the debate he spoke of  going after Al Qaeda and Taliban in Pakistan if needed. My comment was not as a disbelief of Obama not saying so but of Obama saying just only so. See the portion of the news from your link

"If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won't act, we will," Obama said.

Anyway thanks for the link.

You seem to be, like others have been, blinded by his passionate speeches. And they are presidential, don't get me wrong, but I for one look at records, numbers, specific policies and actions and what is best for people all around the world, before making any kind of judgement on candidates without regards to party affiliation.

He had two years in the Senate after his 'well-liked' speech at the DNC, but was virtually silent on voter issues like 'War in Iraq'. Infact his plan is to escalate the war like Bush. He cannot say for certain that he will bring troops home during his first 4 years as President. Keep in mind that Democrats got controlled of the Congress for saying they will bring the troops home as soon as possible. Agreed that they didn't have the majority to overturn the veto from Bush, but what seems to be Obama's problem when he is the President? Clearly the Democratic controlled congress can pass the legislation to bring troops home and he will have to sign the bill. Is he not sure whether or not he will sign it? What keeps him from saying like Governer Richardson that he will bring troops home without keeping any residual forces. Isn't this the Democrats plans in the first place?

A year ago, Congress passed a legislation (sponsored by Lieberman) that gave blank cheque (first step) to the President to wage a war with Iran. During that vote, where was Obama? Why wasn't he present to vote for such a critical issue? Is he scared of not getting Republican votes. This is one of the major issue and his absence clearly shows that he does not have clear headed ideas to back a bill that he wants to vote for. Hillary is much better than this, atleast she was present to vote and backed herself up eventhough a lot of Democrats didn't like how she voted. But atleast we know where she is on such issues. But Obama wants to play on safe grounds on major issues so he doesn't have to answer voter questions.

I can clearly see that he has been notably light on being specific issues so sorry, he is good, but not good enough.

 

Wow, wow... how could you say that Obama was indifferent or silent on "Aairaque War"? He opposed it  before America had gone to war.
Here's the link.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=m6Zz10ybYss

About his present votes, it is explained here.
http://boards.historychannel.com/thread.jspa?threadID=700026940&tstart=0&mod=1203491544809

http://www.stateline.org/live/details/story?contentId=274863

If you want his detailed policies, please visit once

http://www.barackobama.com/issues/  

See, the policies are nearly identical to what Clinton camp has. So my rooting for Obama is not because of only Policies but also of his vision. They are cogent.

I am blinded by what I have seen but not without seeing anything. Yeah, I don't have blinkers strapped.

Again, I want to reiterate that these are my preferences and above mentioned views are sifted from the chaff (there is abundance of such). Readers discretion is advised.

It's good that we resort to healthy debate. You are most welcome for any comments or concerns. I will respect it. Take care.

i wanna see OBAMA as President coz he ain't WHITE... infact he is GREY... 

i wanna see OBAMA as President coz he ain't WHITE... infact he is GREY...