Anti-Colonialist And Obama

[Bonnie Franklin]

I just finished reading The Roots Of Obama's Rage (highly recommend) and the author really puts forth a case for Obama not only believing in anti-colonialism, but using his Presidency to spread it as widely as possible and at every opportunity as it arises.

 

[Deuce]

I just finished reading The Roots Of Obama's Rage (highly recommend) and the author really puts forth a case for Obama not only believing in anti-colonialism, but using his Presidency to spread it as widely as possible and at every opportunity as it arises.

Yes, I should hope he does.

 

[Diogenes]

The tragedy is that Obama doesn't seem to understand who the real enemy is.

 

[Jetboogieman]

Ah... wait a second.

So all this accusation of being Anti-Colonialist... the founding fathers were anti-colonialist... were they not? Or do you all now claim want to be a british Colony again. We'd be happy to take you back :mrgreen:

 

[Cold Highway]

If Obama was actually anti-colonialist he wouldnt be continuing our current foreign policy. He is as blood thirsty as any neo-con, possibly more because of his record on abortion.

 

[TacticalEvilDan]

My first thought when I read the title of this thread was, "What does the President have against colons?"

Sorry, carry on. :lol:

 

[Deuce]

Wait, I'm just trying to figure this out. The regressives actually think we should... establish colonies? Because the other side usually calls that an "invasion."

 

[washunut]

Wait, I'm just trying to figure this out. The regressives actually think we should... establish colonies? Because the other side usually calls that an "invasion."

True since Obama has added 60-70K troops into Afghanistab how can he be labeled anti- colonialist.

 

[Bonnie Franklin]

True since Obama has added 60-70K troops into Afghanistab how can he be labeled anti- colonialist.

We all know that Obama would love to pull all the troops out tomorrow. He has to use some restraint in carrying out his agenda, after all he did campaign on Afghanistan being the correct war, as opposed to Iraq.

In "Roots Of Obama's Rage" the author said that "if Obama views Afghanistan as a war of colonial occupation, then his only concern is how fast to get out."

He reluctantly sent a small surge into Afghanistan, because he didn't see anyway out of it. He was glad for the opportunity to fire McChrystal, as he was doing too good of a job there and like the author says, he really does not want to win. Winning would have the result of the USA getting on their high horse again and thinking they can go out, start wars and win.

What Obama wants more than anything is to "share the wealth," as he has said. This is because of Colonization. He does not like countries invading other countries and taking their resources. We need to pay it all back, in fact if he can get all of those "naughty" countries to pay it back, he would enjoy that immensely.

This is all due the the "Dreams From My Father." Obama has told us all, if we will only listen to him. He is fulfilling his father's dreams.

Had Africa been colonized for a longer period of time (as the author states), they would must likely be much better off, as we can see with India (for example). Obama doesn't see it that way, unfortunately for all of us, that will have to pay for his dreams that are coming true.

The author is careful to say throughout the book that he believes that Obama is doing what he thinks is best for this country.

 

[Bonnie Franklin]

True since Obama has added 60-70K troops into Afghanistab how can he be labeled anti- colonialist.

According to the author, Obama sent in around 30,000 troops. Much less than asked for.

 

[Le Marteau]

We all know that Obama would love to pull all the troops out tomorrow. He has to use some restraint in carrying out his agenda, after all he did campaign on Afghanistan being the correct war, as opposed to Iraq.

In "Roots Of Obama's Rage" the author said that "if Obama views Afghanistan as a war of colonial occupation, then his only concern is how fast to get out."

He reluctantly sent a small surge into Afghanistan, because he didn't see anyway out of it. He was glad for the opportunity to fire McChrystal, as he was doing too good of a job there and like the author says, he really does not want to win. Winning would have the result of the USA getting on their high horse again and thinking they can go out, start wars and win.

What Obama wants more than anything is to "share the wealth," as he has said. This is because of Colonization. He does not like countries invading other countries and taking their resources. We need to pay it all back, in fact if he can get all of those "naughty" countries to pay it back, he would enjoy that immensely.

This is all due the the "Dreams From My Father." Obama has told us all, if we will only listen to him. He is fulfilling his father's dreams.

Had Africa been colonized for a longer period of time (as the author states), they would must likely be much better off, as we can see with India (for example). Obama doesn't see it that way, unfortunately for all of us, that will have to pay for his dreams that are coming true.

The author is careful to say throughout the book that he believes that Obama is doing what he thinks is best for this country.

I'm struggling to come to terms with which ridiculous extreme of the American political spectrum is now advocating imperialism -- I would assume, by your negative bias towards Obama's dislike of imperialism, that it's the conservatives who support these colonial-era ideas (most likely simply because Obama doesn't support them).

To that, I would say: A conservative is, by nature, against making sweeping policy changes. The States have always (or atleast for the past 70 years) been very anti-Imperialism. I can not fathom how conservatives could possibly get behind the idea of new-age colonialism, while still retaining any semblance of connexion with their party ideals.


Anyway, even if the conservatives are stupid enough to be advocating for a new wave of colonialism, they should really take a few history refresher courses. Imperialism is dead -- all of the world's empires were destroyed over the course of two world wars. After the Second World War, colonialism became nearly impossible to pull off. Want proof? See: Vietnam, Algeria, Cuba, Nicaragua, India, Pakistan, Afghanistan, and about half the other nations on Earth. You have Mikhail Kalashnikov to thank for that one. I'd like to see the Americans try to start an old-style empire.

 

[Goshin]

Hm, let's see.

We didn't make Germany part of the USA.
We didn't make Japan part of the USA.
Korea is still Korea.
Vietnam is Vietnam.
Neither Panama nor Grenada got made into the 51st State.
We didn't keep Iraq the first time we beat them.
We're letting Iraq and Afganistan go their own ways soon.

So how exactly are we a Colonial power again?

 

[Bonnie Franklin]

Hm, let's see.

We didn't make Germany part of the USA.
We didn't make Japan part of the USA.
Korea is still Korea.
Vietnam is Vietnam.
Neither Panama nor Grenada got made into the 51st State.
We didn't keep Iraq the first time we beat them.
We're letting Iraq and Afganistan go their own ways soon.

So how exactly are we a Colonial power again?

The author is saying that Obama (and his father), sees the USA as an invader and we have been that.

Obama sees the USA going into countries and reaping rewards. You do not have to agree with it, it is a matter of whether or not Obama believes it.

 

[Bonnie Franklin]

Hm, let's see.

We didn't make Germany part of the USA.
We didn't make Japan part of the USA.
Korea is still Korea.
Vietnam is Vietnam.
Neither Panama nor Grenada got made into the 51st State.
We didn't keep Iraq the first time we beat them.
We're letting Iraq and Afganistan go their own ways soon.

So how exactly are we a Colonial power again?

Might I suggest you read the book. The authore was pretty convincing in showing his evidence.

 

[Goshin]

Might I suggest you read the book. The authore was pretty convincing in showing his evidence.

Thank you, but I am not all that intrested in delving into Obama's psyche. I prefer to focus on how to unelect him in 2012.

 

[Le Marteau]

Hm, let's see.

We didn't make Germany part of the USA.
We didn't make Japan part of the USA.
Korea is still Korea.
Vietnam is Vietnam.
Neither Panama nor Grenada got made into the 51st State.
We didn't keep Iraq the first time we beat them.
We're letting Iraq and Afganistan go their own ways soon.

So how exactly are we a Colonial power again?

Eh, to be entirely fair, the Americans, Brits, French and Soviets did keep Germany for several years, and even after the occupation was over, there were still thousands of Soviet and American troops across German soil.

As well, America lost in Korea and Vietnam, making it an impossibility for colonisation to occur.

I'm not just picking at semantics here -- we're on the same side, I don't agree that America is an Old World Order-style imperial power. But arguments made with factual errors always come off with less power than those that are historically sound.

Just a friendly bit of aide, then.