For some reason, John Pilger's articles have been getting on my nerves lately. Still, when I see his name, it's like I'm a rubbernecker at the scene of a car crash. I know it's going to be terrible, but I just have to take a look.

What bothers me is not his sentiment about Libya. As with Iraq, I grow increasingly irritated every time a 'leader' in our government (or anyone else's, for that matter) tries to sell me the same old tripe about 'democracy (blah, blah, blah), freedom (blah), liberation (blah)' or 'the common good (blah)' to justify our stance in any of these conflicts.

The no-fly zone is an excellent example. The first I heard of it, it was proposed as a very thinly veiled attempt to neutralise Gaddafi's superior military capabilities, to prevent him from quelling the rebellion in his country. As it gained support, though, it was all about preventing him from butchering innocent civilians. How many innocent civilians were butchered by Libyan fighter pilots is anyone's guess; how innocent a civilian with an assault rifle is also remains open to interpretation. A third question begs answering: how many innocent civilians have died as a result of NATO ineptitude?

So it's not the spirit of Pilger's article that bothers me. It's the arrogance with which he draws long bows and makes wild assertions, assuming that we - the humble public - won't question them. "Freezing" funds amounts to "bank robbery"? The situation in Libya is the same as that which occurred in Kosovo back in the 1990s? The Americans are currently plotting to install a new tyrant in Egypt? Please, Mr Pilger, give us more than your word to work with here! Name names! Offer links!

Perhaps he DOESN'T assume that we won't question him. Perhaps outrage and actual THOUGHT about international affairs is what he's after. If so, good job. I think that might be why I keep coming back for more.

Once upon a time Pilger's articles hardly got a comment.The truth is starting to emerge and thus more are paying attention.

Thanks to everyone who were so kind as to respond to my post. This is an interesting thread and much can be learned from all the various responses. I'm not any sort of expert in international relations but I still can't help wondering - should President Obama be held responsible for the actions he's taken to date? Afterall didn't he inherit an awful mess from the previous administration and then there was the global financial crisis, turmoil in the Middle-East, and so on. I read somewhere that in American politics (or perhaps in politics in general) it takes one term to settle into office, and another to actually try to achieve anything. Perhaps we should wait until Obama's second term in office before criticising him? Just a thought.

Obama has spectacularly failed to champion the interests of universal human rights including the right to a reasonable standard of living for billions of people at home in the United States, or overseas.

Obama is clearly comfortable with superficial and fatally compromised reforms that will in the long term have as little positive effect as no reform at all.

The world under present international leaders is heading into another great depression since none of the pertpetrators of the GFC have been punished. Nor have serious attempts been made to restructure broken global institutions.

Laws been not been put in place to avert catastrophe nor have international and national enforcement agencies been empowered to address the unbridled greed and power of muti-national super corporations that love to play politicians and public opinion through their media interests like pawns in a game of Chess.

Peter Hume.Ron Paul is one of the few honest politicians left in Congress.He wants to end the US Federal Reserve whose existance is against the constitution and bring the troops home.He is hated by his own Party and most of the democrats.Both the major parties are controlled by the major banking interests who have interests in arms,oil,drugs etc.It is corruption beyond anyone's imagination.

Hi Lexi,

I believe Obama was symbolic to many people of a change of guard in American politics.
His rise to prominence was a particularly inspiring moment in U.S and world politics. His speech on election night was uplifting in the extreme.....anyone who could make Jon Stewart and Steven Colbert go misty-eyed was someone to sit up and take notice of.

....problem is that Obama is harnessed to the U.S political system which is in turn beholden to the elite, both corporate and old-school, - change is therefore difficult to bring about without a system of trade-offs (which was in evidence with the new heath deal) between the various power brokers and vested interests.