We can not blame Obama for what Bush or other American presidents did. Also we can not expect from Obama deep changes without to create huge problems to his country. He is not very lucky because he found his country with many problems, two wars , huge financial problems plus very bad relations with the international comunity.
I think it is better to give to Obama more time and recognize that he made some steps to the right direction. For me President Obama is one from most progresive American Presidents and I hope he will support the International Criminal Court.
I think Bush was the worst American president not only for the international comunity but for the American people too.
When USA president's steps are to the right direction we encourage and support him for more and bigger steps and we do not blame him for what happened in the past.
Antonios Symeonakis
Adelaide

Dear Antonios,

I hope you don't mind me agreeing with me. I also hope that Obama will support the International Criminal Court. At the Nuremberg trials after WW2 the American prosecutor hoped the trials would be a precedent by which all nations including his own should be judged for crimes. Bush not only refused to ratify the ICC but also tried to keep other nations from ratifying. I hope Obama will also support the Law of the Sea and other international instruments disregarded or opposed by Bush.

I am thrilled that Obama is addressing health, energy and education - all things that Bush neglected. I think he genuinely wants peace, and part of it is reducing the massive military budget.

He has cancelled the F-22, missile defense and other military programs. Even his own party is fighting him in Congress because military industry jobs help politicians to get elected. There is not the rigid party discipline that there is in Australia where the government is part of the legislature.

In the US you lose your job you lose your health insurance when you may need it the most. Many Americans have no insurance at all since there is no national scheme like Medicare. The insurance companies and the doctors lobby are fighting his efforts to change that.

In Cairo he admitted that the US has done wrong in the past. That’s a significant departure from American triumphalism.

He has cancelled the directives that allowed torture and may even bring the torturers to justice. However, by doing so he will get Republican opposition and jeopardise the rest of his program.

Through his efforts the US Congress has passed the first bill dealing with climate change. Bush ignored the problem completely. He has made a deal with Russia to cut down nuclear armaments - a problem that other presidents neglected. He has worked with poor people as a community organiser. No previous president has had that background. He is trying to make the US energy independent. I think he is the best the US has had for a long time.

David, I agree Obama is -or appears to be- a vast improvement on Bush. He is still however working within the American paradigm of world's policeman; and I still agree with me (good line, that) that imperialism is a natural amplification of Capitalism.
The most tiresome argument from conservatives (of both sides, if you accept a more literal definition of the word) is that which demonstrates their complete lack of imagination: If you don't endorse A, then you must endorse B.
"C? what C? What the heck is a C?"
I've always thought the whole point of discussions like this is to try and find that alternative solution; that 'C'.
Otherwise, all we have is a yelling match.

Very interesting comments, mates, but make sure you all keep your minds on history, as any academic tutor worth his salt will tell you.

Regards, BB, WA.

Dear Grim,

I don't agree that imperialism is a natural amplification of Capitalism. “Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism” (1916) by Vladimir Lenin is a classic Marxist theoretical treatise on the relationship between capitalism and imperialism. The treatise is a propaganda exercise that blames capitalism for imperialism. Marxist theory also blames capitalism for racism. It is obviously false since both racism and imperialism predate capitalism. Corporations, insurance companies, stock markets and the other features of capitalism only developed in the last several hundred years. "Imperialism, the highest stage of capitalism," is a bit of Marxist propaganda which has become an article of belief by many. It was nonsense even under Lenin’s definition. Lenin defined imperialism as the export of capital. A study of the movement of capital at the time shows that the greatest capital export was not to the colonies but between the developed countries to each other.

If the Soviet Union had been able to win the Cold War and become the dominant superpower I think the oppression would have been worse. In a nation state system such as we have currently on this planet the superpower/s are going to be oppressive regardless of the nature of the economic system. The Roman Empire that dominated a large park of the globe was a pre-capitalist entity. Imperium means authority or power and is the origin of the word, imperialism. It has absolutely nothing to do with capitalism.

The United States is the dominant nation state and acts in consequence of that position. Its actions might be someone different if it was not capitalist, but imperialism is merely the consequence of being the dominant or a major power in a nation state system.

With the growth of the European Union and other international entities the nation state system is changing, and we may have a new system. National boundaries are beginning to mean less than they used to.

The C in this case is the replacement of the nation state system.

I sincerely hope not, David. As I have said on other posts, I do not consider myself a socialist, but I really don't see how working for a global corporation is any better than working for a -democratic- socialist state.
One person one vote is infinitely preferable to one share, one vote.
As to Capitalism/imperialism, both are pretty much a natural continuation or evolution of the feudal system, where the barons owned the 'capital'; and as such has deep historical roots. The system existed long before the name. Certainly 'the marketplace' has been around for a very long time. Capitalism as currently played pretty much demands growth and is constantly looking for new markets. Think East India Company.
Even with your dual citizenship, you appear to be a man capable of objective analysis. Would you not agree that many of the little wars the US has involved itself in since WW2 have been in defense of capitalism, rather than internal democracy? It seems to me, the US has always shown a total disregard for the wishes of the majority in the countries they have 'helped'.
While I don't agree Capitalism is necessarily racist, I do believe Capitalism is inherently discriminatory. I have posted an article on the subject here:
http://thecomensality.com/avasay/