Obama, Obama, Obama day and night. Apart from getting a totally undeserved Nobel’s peace prize; I’m really ashamed of my fellow countrymen the Norwegians there (guess how many people on the committee are of “middle eastern descent” though) it seems all he’s done so far is not being George W. Bush.
As much as that will always be a good thing for which we should all be thankful, so many others aren’t, so not really a huge achievement.
When he was first elected I wrote in this forum that he was certainly not a Messiah, so we’d have to wait and see, and that when you put someone on the very top of the sky-high expectations pinnacle, there’s only one direction to go. Down. For this I was roundly criticised for being an idiot who “got up on my soap box and spouted about things I didn’t know anything about.”
I lost all respect for him when he didn’t refuse the Nobel prize, but I suppose a few weeks in the top dog chair will do a lot of things to a man’s dignity.
Now it seems that he might, if not be the Messiah, so at least have a thing in common with the geezer after all. For how does this strike you: China is offering to commit to military transparency and to co-operation on nuclear non-proliferation and disarmament - if the ‘Bamster would only find it in his heart to say publicly that Tibet is, has always been and will always be Chinese, and that the US opposes Tibetan independence. Where have we heard this one before? Oh yeah, in the Bible! “All this will be yours if you will fall on your knees and worship me.”
Open letter to Obama: Don’t do it, Barrie! Don’t do it! Jesus didn’t, so you can afford to let this one slide.
(Was it Julian Barnes who said: ” Who knows what would have happened if the devil had said: All this will be yours if you let me fall down on my knees and worship you?”)
Okay, I suppose I didn’t lose absolutely all respect for him over the Nobel rigmarole (it’s difficult for me to respect someone who wants to be president of the US in the first place) but I certainly will if he caves on this one.
And the Chinese - what are they ON? If they’re so bloody sure that Tibet is, has always, etc. and they certainly seem to be as they can speak of little else, why do they need arch enemy capitalist imperialist running dog whatever the US to say so? Who do they need to convince - the Tibetans? Themselves? Countries which seriously hurt the feelings of the Chinese people by having the Dalai Lama over for tea and a chat?
This is right up there with writing self criticism I reckon. Nobody cares if you really mean what you write, in fact everybody knows you don’t; it’s the old “I know that you know that I know that you know and so it goes round,” but as long as you’ve said it or written it, everything is fine. It becomes the truth. But then again with the Chinese government it was always thus.
But really, to drag Mister Wishy-washy Appeasement-monger Obbie into their sordid little games expecting to get some kind of result, knowing full well that if he says Yes! Tibetans should shut up and know their rightful place as ardently admiring subjects of the superior Chinese! he won’t mean it anyway - well that’s just too much even for them.
And that nasty little bribe bargaining chip of theirs, “military transparency” - hello! That’s what they should be doing anyway, voluntarily, if they want to be up there with the civilised nations to whose club they so dearly want to belong by doing absolutely zero in return.
What the article didn’t mention, of course, was the implied “or else.”
Don’t do it, Obbie! I so want to know what the “or else” is. And I so want to keep that tiny little smidgeon of respect I still have left for you - and yes, it is based on your not being George W. Bush.
Recent Comments