Obama will be the first black man neocon to be US President

[westair]

Vietnam was awful but there was a lot worse Presidents than him. The Cold War was far more real and justifiable than the 'war on terror' for example where weapons of mass destruction have never been found in Iraq .


'

You seem to be conflating a number of things here - I disagree that the "war on terror" cannot be justified by the normal codes of war. The "war on terror" is a direct response to 9/11 and other terror attacks on US soil. Afghanistan is seen as a legitimate part of this and all presidential candidates have concurred on this. Iraq was a made up WMD lie that could not be justified or put under the same banner. Bush - and his script writers - tried to conflate the two but I dont think anyone buys that reasoning now.

[fionnmccool]

Vietnam was awful but there was a lot worse Presidents than him. The Cold War was far more real and justifiable than the 'war on terror' for example where weapons of mass destruction have never been found in Iraq .


'

You seem to be conflating a number of things here - I disagree that the "war on terror" cannot be justified by the normal codes of war. The "war on terror" is a direct response to 9/11 and other terror attacks on US soil. Afghanistan is seen as a legitimate part of this and all presidential candidates have concurred on this. Iraq was a made up WMD lie that could not be justified or put under the same banner. Bush - and his script writers - tried to conflate the two but I dont think anyone buys that reasoning now.

Hmm it appears the quotes got messed up and 'jcdf' was put where my name should have been. Anyway no worries. That happens to me all the time.

Being an engineer and not a history/sociology student, I'm always open to learning from someone who specialises in this area of history or politics full time.
I probably conflated Vietnam with the cold war in the same way Iraq was conflated with Afghanistan. Anyway in my view there would be a case to give and possibly lose my life to combat communism and protect freedom at home (and to a lesser extent abroad) but the whole Iraq situation does not persuade me at all. As far as I know (and I refer to the first line above) Vietnam was possibly the first war to be televised and thats how we know about the whole ugliness of it. I think for better or worse theres probably much stricter control of the media this time around. I cant say without studying the cold war further whether Vietnam was justified or not (minus the crimes of individual soldiers) no matter how painful it was for the people there but I am pretty certain Iraq was not.
Still I was highly impressed by the youtube link I posted by JFK above. Compare what JFK said about religion to the people who vote for Bush having 'museums' dedicated to creationism which have waxwork dummies of men standing next to dinosaurs.

[Thac0man]

I think a black president who won his position on merit against fierce competition will give some confidence and hope to black Americans and help to heal their societys troubled past.

'Merit'?. I am still waiting for Obama to explain his 'Change' thingy. Until he does his campaign is an media fuellled rock star band wagon - merit does not come into it.

He fought a long, hard and vicious campaign competing against Hilary Clinton just to get where he is now. This combined with the many voters who wont vote for him just because he is black plus the fact that the black voters who might obviously support him dont vote screams merit to me. That he emerged victorious from a competitive process is what I mean by 'merit'.

Yes merit, but only if you can take aside his well documented immunity from quesitoning by the media. His recent courting of 6000 journalists of colour who sat and watched as he was fawned over on stage is another example of the kid gloves Obama is still treated with (the event was Unity 08'). 6000 journalist lining up to shake his hand, pat him on the back and insure his landing after the European trip was a doddle ... in an election year? Christ.

Merit me hole.

[fionnmccool]

ok Thac0man

To begin with, I dont feel Im taking any sides except that of the truth and dont really care who wins.


How about the possibility of losing the important Jewish Vote even for having any distant association with Islam?


http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/muslim.asp

http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/anthem.asp


And what about the New Yorker Magazine Cover ? here > http://edition.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/07/14/obama.cover

I cant accept that no Republican biased media exists and he has it all his own way. That would be silly.

[westair]

ok Thac0man

To begin with, I dont feel Im taking any sides except that of the truth and dont really care who wins.


How about the possibility of losing the important Jewish Vote even for having any distant association with Islam?

There is no "Jewish vote" of any significance - Jews are just less than 2% of the whole population. It is the Israeli lobby that has to be considered. A different but significant kind of power and one which Obama has to deal with and be concerned about. He is not winning them over and the the cover of the New Yorker tells me that . Don't give me satire - it was a direct hit at him.

[westair]

[]


Still I was highly impressed by the youtube link I posted by JFK above. Compare what JFK said about religion to the people who vote for Bush having 'museums' dedicated to creationism which have waxwork dummies of men standing next to dinosaurs.

[/quote][/quote][/quote][/quote][/quote]

These are two very different time periods and the US is not the country it was when JFK was talking. When JFK was speaking he was specifically addressing Protestant ministers - and a very Protestant nation- that they had nothing to fear from a Catholic becoming president. The fear back then was that the Pope would be interfering in US law and directing the President on matters which would interfer with the separation of Church and State. But church and state were not quite so separate as they appeared to be and Protestantism was the major and influential religion at the time. This was the force that Kennedy had to assuage. If you listen to his speech he mentioned the pope - and how the Pope will pose no problem. That was the atmosphere of Kennedy's time - that Protestantism would be undermined.

Since then the US has undergone many fundamental changes and church and state have become "more separate" by laws that have been introduced since the 1960s - most especially in the public school system where Christianity has been obliterated from the curriculum. Mind you, it's fine to talk about Judaism's and other religions' festivals but not those of Christianity. Another example, Crosses have been removed from public buildings and Christmas cribs have been disallowed in the public places. This has caused a Christian backlash and it was Bush and the Republicans who saw that there was an electorate out there which felt itself increasingly disenfranchised. I am not giving an opinion on this - i am simply stating the historical progress of US society. The Dems made the mistake of ignoring this backlash - even of seeming to be "elitist" and above it all and got defeated at the polls.

[fionnmccool]

There is no "Jewish vote" of any significance - Jews are just less than 2% of the whole population. It is the Israeli lobby that has to be considered. A different but significant kind of power and one which Obama has to deal with and be concerned about. He is not winning them over and the the cover of the New Yorker tells me that . Don't give me satire - it was a direct hit at him.

Yeah but this is my point, this lobby will vote about what goes into the media which they have huge control over .

[jcdf]

These are two very different time periods and the US is not the country it was when JFK was talking. When JFK was speaking he was specifically addressing Protestant ministers - and a very Protestant nation- that they had nothing to fear from a Catholic becoming president. The fear back then was that the Pope would be interfering in US law and directing the President on matters which would interfer with the separation of Church and State. But church and state were not quite so separate as they appeared to be and Protestantism was the major and influential religion at the time. This was the force that Kennedy had to assuage. If you listen to his speech he mentioned the pope - and how the Pope will pose no problem. That was the atmosphere of Kennedy's time - that Protestantism would be undermined.

Since then the US has undergone many fundamental changes and church and state have become "more separate" by laws that have been introduced since the 1960s - most especially in the public school system where Christianity has been obliterated from the curriculum. Mind you, it's fine to talk about Judaism's and other religions' festivals but not those of Christianity. Another example, Crosses have been removed from public buildings and Christmas cribs have been disallowed in the public places. This has caused a Christian backlash and it was Bush and the Republicans who saw that there was an electorate out there which felt itself increasingly disenfranchised. I am not giving an opinion on this - i am simply stating the historical progress of US society. The Dems made the mistake of ignoring this backlash - even of seeming to be "elitist" and above it all and got defeated at the polls.

Do you think something similar could happen again? An African American as president of the USA could cause a backlash against African Americans and maybe Africa in general?

[ntab2]

He is not winning them over and the the cover of the New Yorker tells me that . Don't give me satire - it was a direct hit at him.

No, really, that was satire. Do you really think anyone who works at the New Yorker wants McCain to win?

[petey]

Calling him a neocon is daft considering he's calling for talks with Iran - something that is anathema to most of the Republican party.

1: you don't have to be a republican to be a neocon - joe lieberman, bill clinton, hillary clinton ...
2: obama calls a country which has no nuclear capacity and poses no threat to anyone much less the us (1 zillion nukes) and israel (c 100 nukes) a 'grave threat' and wants to leave open the possibility of bombing it

er, yeah, a neocon

full disclosure: i'll be voting barr