Yes, great article, PS. Thanks for the link.

I wouldn't pretend that this is as good but nevertheless, it's an interesting piece of journalism - a scene-setter for us non-Americans. From the Telegraph Barack Obama: 'He's been sent by God'

The Torygraph piece capture the insanity and ignorance of the US voter well, Sir P. Change? My arse! As I have been writing to American chums of recent: Plus Ça Change........................................

Great article? Really? A three page diatribe of, mainly, ascribed spin? Sorry, can't agree, there are no references given for ANY of the allegations at all, most of which have been ripped out of context. The question of Obama "bombing" Pakistan was in relation to allegations that he would sit down and talk to terrorists and that he was a muslim sympathiser! FFS! You can't have it both ways, unless you are a highly prejudiced commentator who writes without fear of getting a response. Here is what he actually said: From Reuters WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Barack Obama said on Wednesday the United States must be willing to strike al Qaeda targets inside Pakistan, adopting a tough tone after a chief rival accused him of naivete in foreign policy. Obama's stance comes amid debate in Washington over what to do about a resurgent al Qaeda and Taliban in areas of northwest Pakistan that President Pervez Musharraf has been unable to control, and concerns that new recruits are being trained there for a September 11-style attack against the United States. That is not the same as "bombing Pakistan"! Obama publicly has declared that his regime will extend the ‘war against terrorism’ by systematic, large-scale ground and air attacks on Pakistan, thus escalating the war to include villages, towns and cities deemed sympathetic to the Afghan resistance. That is complete and utter garbage. I'm not sure that I can take the article seriously. There is a very obvious prejudice, what the source is is open to conjecture, but this statement shows it perfectly: Instead of highlighting, exposing and denouncing the reactionary foreign and domestic policies of Democratic Party candidate Senator Barack Obama, they have chosen to support him, I have rarely read anything so blatantly judgemental and totally unsupported.

the United States must be willing to strike al Qaeda targets inside Pakistan ...and how do you imagine that would play out in Pakistan, Tony? Would the majority of Pakistanis simply shrug and say, 'It's fine, they're just bombing al Qaeda...'? Obama would risk stirring up a hornet's nest that could even drag India into the mix. Scary.

Have you been asleep? Bush has already been doing it - I don't see too much rioting going on, do you?

That's not really what I meant. If the US continues to follow a policy like that, the chances of a friendly government (and don't forget that General Pervez Musharraf's government was quite friendly to the USA over many years) in Pakistan will diminish considerably. Can the USA afford to take a chance like that? Perhaps Obama knows something that we don't but a nuclear Pakistan not onside doesn't sound like a great idea to me.

And if they don't continue with that policy because the Pakistani government either can't or won't do anything about the training camps? Then what? Open season - terrorists operating with impunity! It's a bad situation that would not be better for doing nothing. The Pakistani's are too reliant on financial aid to consider attacking anyone other than India and they would do that for fun if they thought they could get away with it. Their economy is going down faster than a dead diver at 300 feet, they cannot afford to pro-*test*-('") other than to supposedly save a bit of face for their own people to see.

No comments on the blatant dishonesty inherent in that article?

"The Pakistani's are too reliant on financial aid" You said it. Traditionally, such matters are discussed behind closed doors where US representatives make people offers that they can't possibly refuse. I see Obama's statement as a considerable departure from this policy.

I think that you are being a little naive, Percy. You have to put it against the background of what Bush was doing, what McCain said he would do and also what Hillary Cliinton said... it was all the same thing. That was for domestic consumption to ensure that he could not be charged, as he was being at the time, as being muslim-friendly and soft on terrorism. The realities are, as always, very different. Pragmatism rules. Most people would be seriously disturbed by what is done in the people's name. Remember Churchill and Coventry? If it had been known that he allowed Coventry to be bombed instead of evacuating, do you think he would still have been regarded as a hero at the time? Very few of the important national decisions are made public, I don't see Obama as being, or going to be, any different.

Petras is a widely published and well respected serial author, Tony. I suggest you email him expressing your dispute with his statements. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Petras http://petras.lahaine.org/

He may well be well respected, but then so was Hitler in his day. It doesn't make his ideas right and certainly not many of his blatantly wrong comments. There is a clear agenda in that article and he's not too worried about extrapolating a genuine comment by Obama into something quite different - just as 30% of Republicans believe that Obama is a muslim because that is the sort of crap that has been put about! Sorry, no credibility from me for that article. I wouldn't expect him to take any notice of me, so I won't bother taking you up on your invitation to email him. Why not, instead, put up some evidence of your own supporting the allegations? If you can find any.

AM I bothered? Mouth! Bothered? Seriusly, Tony, I'm sure you have all noticed I have stayed mainly out of this particular thread since I don't actually think it will make a blind bit of difference which candidate wins. Obummer is the classic modern day US politician: there is no way in that venal country, billionaire backers put up huge sums, mainly through PACs because they suddenly become philanthropists! All that will alter is another set of Special Interest lobbyists will be calling for their payback.

I think that you have missed the major point here, Obama's campaign contributions have been small ones from supporters in $10, $20 amounts, NOT big donations from corporations quartering him up like they did with Bush. His major obligation is to the people, not big business. Let's make this easy. We'll ignore his first reason for not voting for Obama because it is vague and a simple opinion that has been stated as fact, evidenced by "in other words..." So just find something that backs up number 2: Obama publicly has declared that his regime will extend the ‘war against terrorism’ by systematic, large-scale ground and air attacks on Pakistan, thus escalating the war to include villages, towns and cities deemed sympathetic to the Afghan resistance. In fact let's make it even easier, distill it down to one thing: large-scale ground and air attacks on Pakistan.