Obama calls on the world to unite.

What does this mean? By the "world' he means, of course,

the western powers. By unite, he means that we all should

fall behind America and accept its imperial demands

Are the Europeans going to fall for this crap?

This is the moment when we must defeat terror and dry up the well of extremism that supports it.

This threat is real and we cannot shrink from our responsibility to combat it. - Barack Obama [The Black Bush]

Obama "Terror" [Anti-Muslim] Propaganda Speech in Berlin

Sounds Like Hitler Anti-Semitic Propaganda [Source]

Scroll down to read "Analyzing Europe's Love Affair with Obama"

Saying he knows his country isn't "perfect," U.S. presidential hopeful Barack Obama told a Berlin audience "this is our moment" to unite.

The junior Democratic senator from Illinois stood at the Victory Column in Tiergarten Park, buoyed by chants of "Obama, Obama, Obama" and applause for his call to defeat the ills plaguing the world.

"People of Berlin, people of the world, this is our moment," Obama said. "I know my country has not perfected itself.

"At times we've struggled to keep the promise of liberty and equality for all of our people. We've made our share of mistakes. And there are times when our actions around the world have not lived up to our best intentions. …

"The road ahead will be long. But I come before you to say that we are heirs to a struggle for freedom.

"We are a people of improbable hope. With an eye toward the future, with resolve in our heart, let us remember this history, and answer our destiny, and remake the world once again."

Obama recalled the fall of the Berlin Wall and the early days of the Cold War, just steps from the sites were former U.S. Presidents Ronald Reagan and John F. Kennedy delivered memorable anti-communist speeches. He used the backdrop for another call to arms.

"This is the moment when we must defeat terror and dry up the well of extremism that supports it. This threat is real and we cannot shrink from our responsibility to combat it," Obama said.

Analyzing Europe's Love Affair with Obama [Source]

There is a surreal element to the wave of adulation being generated in the European media surrounding Democratic Presidential nominee Barack Obama’s upcoming three-day trip to Europe.

The most adulatory statements on Obama have been made in the German media, where Obama spoke to an audience of two hundred thousand in Berlin today.

Der Spiegel makes references to “The Messiah factor” being motivated by a broad “yearning for a new America.” The Frankfurter Rundschau proclaimed, “Lincoln, Kennedy, Obama.”

The Berliner Morgenpost described him as “The New Kennedy” and the Bild followed suit, writing, “This Black American Has Become the New Kennedy!”

There is, in such statements, a degree of self-delusion, particularly in liberal media circles. A poll in Britain’s Guardian found that if a US election were to be decided in the UK, then Obama would beat the Republican John McCain by a margin of five votes to one.

In an op-ed piece in the same newspaper, Gary Younge explained the phenomena of “Obamamania” as a by-product of the “pervasive and profound” damage done to the “world’s view of America” by George Bush.

“Most Europeans see him not just as Bush’s likely successor but as his absolute negation—the anti-Bush. Where the current president is belligerent, parochial, indifferent and oafish, Obama is conciliatory, worldly, curious and refined.”

The Guardian’s Sunday sister paper, the Observer, ran a piece by Constanze Stelzenmüller, citing the same basis for the adulation of Obama.

“President Obama is finally coming to Europe! All right, the Americans haven’t elected him ... yet. But that’s a mere technicality as far as we’re concerned. We made up our minds long ago: our President is Barack Obama.”

However, any belief that the media is merely echoing illusions in the general population that Obama represents a return to civilised politics after the madness of the Bush era is false.

Here we are not dealing with the politically ill informed, who may have swallowed the portrayal of Obama as the “anti-war candidate” or a voice of the dispossessed.

Newspapers are carrying out the boosting of Obama across the official political spectrum. It involves editors and journalists who have followed carefully Obama’s recent speeches on foreign policy.

They have concluded that there is an opportunity to establish a better relationship between the European powers and the United States, behind someone with a surer grasp of how to project America’s military and economic power and who is less likely to be unilateralist when doing so than Bush.

Obama has spent the past weeks reassuring corporate America that he is committed to and capable of defending its interests on the world arena.

He has made clear in a number of high-profile speeches and interviews that the timeline in his proposal for a scaling down of troops in Iraq within 16 months of his inauguration is hard-and fast, and is not a demand for a complete withdrawal.

Moreover, it is bound up with his call to expand the US troop presence in Afghanistan by as many as 10,000 soldiers and threats to mount cross-border operations in Pakistan.

This is broadly in line with the foreign policy priorities of the European powers, who are concerned that the debacle suffered by the US in Iraq has damaged America’s global standing and destabilised not only the Middle East, but the entire world.

The European powers cannot afford to indulge in schadenfreude at America’s expense.

Even with the end of the Cold War, they still view the US as the main bastion of the imperialist world order and a vital counterweight against their Chinese and Russian rivals.

The embrace of Obama is in large part based on a calculation that he may well be a safer hand on the rudder than McCain, or at least someone better able to sell the US to the rest of the world.

After Obama met with Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Malik, a government spokesman, Ali al-Dabbagh, supported the proposed timetable for a troop withdrawal.

He told the press, “We cannot give any timetables or dates but the Iraqi government believes the end of 2010 is the appropriate time for the withdrawal of forces.”

Keeping a “residual force” in Iraq of something approaching 60,000 troops is also in line with the plans of McCain and the Republicans, whatever they might say in order to try and embarrass Obama.

Britain’s Prime Minister Gordon Brown has indicated that he would like, conditions permitting, to withdraw the UK’s remaining troops from their base at Basra airport before the next general election in 2010—something he would not have mooted without discussions with the Bush administration.

Obama’s policy is also more attractive to Europe than McCain’s in that he has been more clearly in favour of a negotiated settlement with Iran.

Most of the European powers view a possible war with Iran as potentially a worse disaster than Iraq.

US allies in Europe have not been willing so far to risk their own forces significantly in Afghanistan, but may be ready to do so if they believe Obama will signal a return to a more multilateral approach to foreign policy that will give them a share in the exploitation of oil reserves in the Middle East and Central Asia.

Whether the desire of the European powers that Obama becomes the next president is realised or not, these are the underlying considerations shaping the absurd attempts to glorify him as the bringer of fresh “hope” to America and all of humanity.

They presage not a more peaceful world, but a continued growth of both US and European militarism.