But when I’m reading this I have to constantly stop and intervene to not to take it the wrong way, which would be all too easy. So let me pick a few lines:

“When it comes to radical groups that use terror as a tool.. {He is not referring to IDF in Gaza} radical states who harbor extremists.. {He is not referring to Lieberman or the countless other assholes} undermine peace.. {Not referring to Bibi Livni and the Ehuds} and seek or spread weapons of mass destruction.. {No, not referring to throwing white phosphor from planes from a safe altitude out over a tightly packed concentration camp full of defenceless people with nowhere to flee} and regimes that systematically kill or ethnically cleanse their own people.. {well this clearly doesn’t refer to Israel because the “two-legged-beasts” could never be called their own people}, we must stand united and use every means at our disposal to end the threat that they pose…” {‘They’ being the ones that are ethnically cleansed ofcourse.}

This makes reading it rather a tedious activity, knowing beforehand I’ll learn nothing new. But then I am astonished to be proven wrong about that and find that I really am learning something new. An American VP who knows nothing of the world but how to lecture it knows a line from an Irish poet.

So why pick a line from this poem of Yeats that handles about the Easter Rebellion in Ireland of 1916 in the context of the Obama rethoric about changing stuff. Perhaps it is an answer on the question of changing stuff into what?

The Irish context in the poem is about the fight for an Irish republic independent from England and the way Ireland forever transformed after the rebellion. That there was no way back, high costs were paid for perhaps nothing and there was nothing to expect but things getting worse.

And worse things went as we now know. So since it is all just rethoric and nothing else in the speech touches on the real world perhaps that’s the promise of change: all downhill from here, more terror and more wars and more Nato countries to install more missile shields in to get a more dangerous world to get more wars.

Maybe the changing of Obama is more like the anti-interventionism of Wilson than the modesty of Bush.

As for nuclear proliferation: isn’t the US busy developing NEW UPGRADED NUCLEAR WEAPONS, while at the same time it is busy denying the same rights to others?

Obama has indeed shown his inexperience by relying on the Bush retreads in his operations both at home and abroad. The sooner the US realizes that the Afghan war is theirs the better it will be. NATO is a dinosaur is should have been dissolved a long time ago. The US is keeping troops in Germany to keep its supply line open to the Middle East. Plus ca change, plus la meme chose.

As for nuclear proliferation: isn’t the US busy developing NEW UPGRADED NUCLEAR WEAPONS, while at the same time it is busy denying the same rights to others?

Obama has indeed shown his inexperience by relying on the Bush retreads in his operations both at home and abroad. The sooner the US realizes that the Afghan war is theirs the better it will be. NATO is a dinosaur is should have been dissolved a long time ago. The US is keeping troops in Germany to keep its supply line open to the Middle East. Plus ca change, plus la meme chose.

This is different?

Lobe Log on American Vice President Joe Biden’s speech the Munich security conference….

Even after the selection of Biden as VP there was some hope of change that anyone might believe in. That quickly dissipated with the appointment of retreads to every major position, but I expected the phony dialogue to be sustained a bit longer.

Sadly, to the deluded left liberals who are still wearing rose blinkers can be added a proportion of poor Palestinians (at least according to the survey that you linked). Very sad indeed.

Harold Pinter was correct. Now, I believe, the only hope for the international community is a total collapse of the US economy. To paraphrase Bush : Bring it on.