Obama Regime Warns Nigeria To Show “Restraint” In Fight Against Jihadists…


#1

On May 18, Nigerian war planes “struck militant camps in the northeast” in an attempt to stem the growing tide of Islamic terrorists in the area. The U.S. quickly warned that Nigeria needs to be sure “to respect human rights and not harm civilians.”

Reuters reports that Nigerian troops used "jets and helicopters to bombard targets in their biggest offensive since the Boko Haram group launched a revolt almost four years ago."
The situation in northeast Nigeria has become so bad that President Goodluck Jonathan declared a state of emergency there days ago.

U.S. Urges Nigeria Show ‘Restraint’ in Striking Back Against Islamic Militants
Obama wants kindness toward those we are supposedly fighting with one hand behind our backs. Meanwhile he wants to supply money and weapons to “rebels” who just happen to be Al Qaeda or other Islamic groups which have vowed the destruction of America


#2

I hope they blow up everything within 50 miles of jihad cities.


#3

In a region traditionally blighted by sectarian and tribal conflict, as well as the overflow from neighbouring civil wars, I can imagine nothing more likely to end badly. Boko Haram are an imposition on most communities, not something they support, but I’m sure that’d change quickly enough if the Nigerian state decided to commit something tantamount to genocide in the area. Not enough to just carry a big stick, you have to know that you’re hitting the right person too.


#4

Not enough to just carry a big stick, you have to know that you’re hitting the right person too.

I hope they blow up everything within 50 miles of jihad cities.

Take a guess which quote is from the “conservative”.


#5

Isn’t it just like BO to dictate to other countries (like Israel) how to defend their own nation? His megalomania grows with every utterance out of that muslim-commie mouth of his. He is a complete disaster here running this country, yet he has the bombastic audacity to dictate to other nations how to run theirs!!! Unbelievable arrogance!


#6

US governments of all stripes have been trying to impose their will on sovereign states since the end of WW2, it’s hardly an innovation unique to Obama. Or the US for that matter, every superpower has sought to impose it’s demands and moral edicts on both allies and enemies, it’s how they maintain their position of power.

I won’t bother touching on the Muslim part of that because I can’t imagine any way that would end well but he most definitely is not a Communist. And I say that as a someone with strong (small ‘c’) communist sympathies, he just doesn’t match any conception of the ideology in word or deed although ‘Commie’ seems to be to the right as ‘Nazi’ or ‘Fascist’ is to the left, a lazy an ill-judged insult to throw at anyone perceived as opposition. I remember plenty of first year students and dogmatists throwing those around in the Bush era, was lazy and inaccurate in that case and it’s lazy and inaccurate in this case.

Just to add, I’m no fan of Obama myself. Or mainstream Liberalism for that matter.


#7

Yea, I was about to say there is not a single modern conflict where world leaders do not at least make a generic statement that’s supposed to show they care for civilians, and the US often goes quite a bit further than that. Latching onto Obama for this is grasping at straws.

YouSir: "Small ‘c’ " ?


#8

[quote=“ClassicalTeacher, post:5, topic:39519”]
Isn’t it just like BO to dictate to other countries (like Israel) how to defend their own nation? His megalomania grows with every utterance out of that muslim-commie mouth of his. He is a complete disaster here running this country, yet he has the bombastic audacity to dictate to other nations how to run theirs!!! Unbelievable arrogance!
[/quote]You just reminded me he has done this before and those countries gave him the finger.


#9

I come from a more Anarchist/Left Libertarian background than a traditional Communist one, I’m against central or Party authority but for more immediate communism. Best example I can think of is the early days of the Russian Revolution where the Soviets (local workers councils) were directly democratic and through them the power lay with local communities and workers. After that the Bolsheviks took over and sought to shift power towards a central state and party, wiping out Anarchists and various other Leftist groups along the way.

I’d still support some form of overarching state, contrary to the Anarchist view, but I see that state as an administrative/logistical entity rather than a policy making one.

Conservatives here use the ‘small ‘c’’ thing too oddly enough, for them I think it’s comparable to you differentiating conservatives and Republicans, denotes political beliefs but separates them from any party affiliation.


#10

Okay, you two would be of great help to dispel a bit of my ignorance.
I thought the Communist manifesto pretty well read, “From each according to his ability, and to each, according to his needs.”

I have that wrong?


#11

That quote is not from the manifesto but from a letter to some part of the German Social Democratic movement.

It describes what Marx thought would be possible ideally once the final stage of Communism has been reached, due to a huge surplus of goods resulting from the non-exploitative (in Marxist terms) way that the means of production would be organised.

Another quote from the same letter is “To each according to his contribution”, which is what would have to happen before surplus made providing for everyone possible.

I think idea of “From each according to his ability, and to each, according to his needs” is incompatible (while there is still scarcity of resources) with getting rid of what Marxists see as exploitation, which is basically that labour has a certain value, the capitalist pays less than that (Marx distinguishes between ‘use value’ and ‘exchange value’) and takes the surplus, thus exploiting the worker. It would be no less exploitation if the state took part of some worker’s labour value and gave it to those who did less work.

Also note that Marx did not really give guidelines for what a Socialist/Communist State should look like, and that in the ‘final stage’ that quote describes, there is not supposed to be an overarching State in existence.


#12

How could it not? If you don’t take from one, how is it possible to give to another?
Which is exactly what Obama is attempting to set up.


#13

It’s a utopian ideal. The idea is that by this point, classes and nation-states will have disappeared, there is one global society where all necessary commodities are produced without the need for much human labour, and everyone works for the good of that society without being coerced, as they can produce whatever they want to rather than what they can sell on the market. So this would require huge advancements in labour-saving technology.

The basic idea of Marxism is not redistribution but democratic rule of the means of production, which Obama is definitely not trying to set up :stuck_out_tongue:


#14

Ah, thank you.