thelinuxlink.net

The mainstream media is portraying him as a real change for the country, looking closer at his sponsors for his campaign such as Warren Buffet who donated a lot of his money to the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation or Zbigniew Brzezinski who helped the US support the mujaheddin in Afghanistan to fight against the Soviet-friendly Afghan government.

The information on those two sponsors can be found using wikipedia.

His pro-Israel position is no different to that of the republicans.. taken from his site
http://www.barackobama.com/issues/forei ... /#onisrael

On Israel

* Ensure a Strong U.S.-Israel Partnership: Barack Obama strongly supports the U.S.-Israel relationship, believes that our first and incontrovertible commitment in the Middle East must be to the security of Israel, America's strongest ally in the Middle East. Obama supports this closeness, stating that that the United States would never distance itself from Israel.
* Support Israel's Right to Self Defense: During the July 2006 Lebanon war, Barack Obama stood up strongly for Israel's right to defend itself from Hezbollah raids and rocket attacks, cosponsoring a Senate resolution against Iran and Syria's involvement in the war, and insisting that Israel should not be pressured into a ceasefire that did not deal with the threat of Hezbollah missiles. He believes strongly in Israel's right to protect its citizens.
* Support Foreign Assistance to Israel: Barack Obama has consistently supported foreign assistance to Israel. He defends and supports the annual foreign aid package that involves both military and economic assistance to Israel and has advocated increased foreign aid budgets to ensure that these funding priorities are met. He has called for continuing U.S. cooperation with Israel in the development of missile defense systems.

It is true his position on troops in Iraq has been held before the invasion, however i don;t think people should base there voting on that alone, lets not forget he still supports the troops in Afghanistan.

His attack on welface should not be ignored, for saying "We should acknowledge that conservatives -- and Bill Clinton -- were right about welfare as it was previously structured: by detaching income from work and by making no demands on welfare recipients ... the old AFDC program sapped people of their initiative and eroded their self respect. Any strategy to reduce intergenerational poverty has to be centered on work, not welfare"
source : http://www.thedailypage.com/daily/artic ... icle=21989

An interesting article amongst many on the internet is this.

OBAMA: “HUMILITY REGARDING AMERICA’S ABILITY TO CONTROL EVENTS AROUND THE WORLD”
Edwards is hardly alone among the Democrats in heaping praise on U.S. Cold War foreign policy makers and in framing Bush’s foreign policy negatively against the noble background of the “Greatest Generation.” You could find similar phrases and formulations in the phrases in the foreign policy speeches of Hillary Clinton, Bill Richardson, Chris Dodd and Barack Obama. They all read from the same doctrinal bible when it comes to post-WWII America’s glorious and benevolent role in the world.
None of them kiss the portraits of past U.S. foreign policy elites more energetically than Senator Obama. In his ponderous, power-worshipping campaign book The Audacity of Hope, Obama’s obedient reverence for the great white masters of the past peaks with the rise of the glorious Cold War. He “ponders” with a sense of awe “the work” of Cold War architect George Kennan, which he contrasts with what he sees as the repulsive nihilism of the 1960s New Left. He applauds the wonderful (for him) “post-[World War Two] leadership of president Truman, Dean Acheson, George Marshall and George Kennan” for “craft[ing] …a…new…order that married [Woodrow] Wilsonian idealism to hardheaded realism, an acceptance of American power with a humility regarding America’s ability to control events around the world.” He praises the architects of the Cold War for checking the Soviet Union’s nefarious designs “to spread [in Obama’s words] its totalitarian brand of communism.”

source: http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle ... emID=12928

So Barack Obama is a soft conservative at heart at most he could be called a liberal but whoever thinks if he gets into the white in November the USA is going change must think carefully before voting for him.

The onion made a interesting Parody on the majority of voters , which for its humour is worth having a look.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_9AH-ufAkCU

I am open to listen to any Barack Obama supporters to tell me that i am wrong.

allix wrote:lets not forget he still supports the troops in Afghanistan.

Which is where the terrorists that attacked us on 9/11 actually are. Had we never gotten bogged down in this stupid mess in Iraq, maybe we could have actually accomplished something in Afghanistan. I mean, we have 150,000 troops deployed in Iraq, a country that never even attacked the US, and 8,000 in Afghanistan, the country that is harboring Al-Qaeda and the Taliban. Go figure.

Barack Obama wrote:We should acknowledge that conservatives -- and Bill Clinton -- were right about welfare as it was previously structured: by detaching income from work and by making no demands on welfare recipients ... the old AFDC program sapped people of their initiative and eroded their self respect. Any strategy to reduce intergenerational poverty has to be centered on work, not welfare."

Which I agree with.

allix wrote:He praises the architects of the Cold War for checking the Soviet Union’s nefarious designs “to spread [in Obama’s words] its totalitarian brand of communism.”

Again, I agree with Obama.

allix wrote:So Barack Obama is a soft conservative at heart at most he could be called a liberal but whoever thinks if he gets into the white in November the USA is going change must think carefully before voting for him.

As much as I like Barack Obama, and I did vote for him back in February during my state's primary, I certainly don't have any illusions about him. I don't expect massive change in government. I would like to see some clean up, I would like to see the crooks and liars thrown out, and I'd like some competent people brought in. I'd like to see some progress on the environment, alternative energy, education, poverty reduction, and so on, but that's about it. I would also like to see a return to the days of fiscal discipline experienced during the Clinton years. Modest expectations, really.

Wally Balljacker wrote:
Which is where the terrorists that attacked us on 9/11 actually are. Had we never gotten bogged down in this stupid mess in Iraq, maybe we could have actually accomplished something in Afghanistan. I mean, we have 150,000 troops deployed in Iraq, a country that never even attacked the US, and 8,000 in Afghanistan, the country that is harboring Al-Qaeda and the Taliban. Go figure.
.

When the IRA was bombing England, did we bomb the crap out of Boston ? Thats where a lot of financial support came from.

The invasion of Afghanistan goes back much further than 9/11 , its that the mainstream media have to pump out that that was the reason because if the vast populations knew, then the war would not be so favourable.

Go back to the time when the soviet union was invading Afghanistan, the CIA funded what was known as the northern alliance to fight off the soviet union. The US did not care what type of government the nortern alliance were , just as long as they fought the soviet union.
Soviet union lost around 15,000 soldiers, how can anyone see NATO winning?
Later on the Taliban took control with support from saudi arabia , which the US and England are happy to trade with.
seven years later Bin Laden has yet to be found, what is anyone achieving from staying in the country? Ive yet to see any reconstructing the country.... , have you?
Afghani farmers are continuing to sell heroin which is sold in western cities and the profits for the Taliban leaders who tax the growers.
"The Taliban is growing and creating new alliances not because its sectarian religious practices have become popular, but because it is the only available umbrella for national liberation," writes Pakistani historian and political commentator Tariq Ali.
"We're fighting to free our country," says Mullah Muhammad Omar, "We are not a threat to the world."

I am happy to go into further conversation with you about this....