Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Laser Focus 2-3-15 - ISIS, Some Fellow Liberals and War [View all]Octafish
(55,745 posts)103. You mean like the candidate who said he was a Liberal, then as president wasn't.
Here's a Liberal perspective:
Is This Barack Obama's 2nd Term? Is it Bill Clinton's 3rd? Or Is It Ronald Reagan's 9th?
They say that elections do matter, and that there are real differences between Republican and Democratic presidents. But backing up the view to 30 years, that difference looks a lot more like continuity, both at home and in America's global empire.
By Bruce A. Dixon
Black Agenda Report managing editor
The answer is yes to all three. Ronald Reagan hasn't darkened the White House door in decades. But his policy objectives have been what every president, Democrat and Republican have pursued relentlessly ever since. Barack Obama is only the latest and most successful of Reagan's disciples.
SNIP...
In Barack Obama's case all he had to say was that he wasn't necessarily against wars, just against what he called stupid wars. Corporate media and liberal shills morphed that lone statement into a false narrative that Barack Obama opposed the war in Iraq, making him an instantly viable presidential candidate at a time when the American people overwhelmingly opposed that war. Once in office, Barack Obama strove mightily to abrogate the Status of Forces Agreement with Iraq which would have allowed US forces to remain there indefinitely. But when the Iraqi puppet government, faced with a near revolt on the part of what remained of Iraqi civil society, dared not do his bidding, insisting that uniformed US troops (but not the American and multinational mercenaries we pay to remain there) stick to the withdrawal timetable agreed upon under Bush, liberal shills and corporate media hailed the withdrawal from Iraq as Obama's victory.
Barack Obama doubled down on the invasion and occupation of large areas of Afghanistan, and increased the size of the army and marines, which in fact he pledged to do during his presidential campaign. Presidential candidate Obama promised to end secret imprisonment and torture. The best one can say about President Obama on this score is that he seems to prefer murderous and indiscriminate drone attacks, in many cases, over the Bush policy of international kidnapping secret imprisonment and torture. The Obama administration's reliance on drones combined with US penetration of the African continent, means that a Democratic, ostensibly antiwar president has been able to openly deploy US troops to every part of that continent in support of its drive to control the oil, water, and other resources there.
The objectives President Obama's Africa policies fulfill today were put down on paper by the Bush administration, pursued by Bill Clinton before that, and still earlier pursued by Ronald Reagan, when it funded murderous contra armies of UNITA in Angola and RENAMO in Mozambque. It was UNITA and RENAMO's campaigns, assisted by the apartheid regimes of Israel and South Africa that pioneered the genocidal use of child soldiers. Today, cruise missile liberals hail the Obama administration's use of pit bull puppet regimes like Uganda, Burundi and Rwanda, all of which shot their way into power with child soldiers, to invade Somalia and Congo, sometimes ostensibly to go after other bad actors on the grounds that they are using child soldiers.
CONTINUED...
http://www.blackagendareport.com/content/barack-obamas-2nd-term-it-bill-clintons-3rd-or-it-ronald-reagans-9th
"Cruise missile liberals." That's the reality. And it's not funny. In fact, it's tragic for the United States and the planet.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
113 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
So if the US and UN have targeted funding for ISIS, why are these guys still sitting on thrones?
leveymg
Feb 2015
#2
There is a universal freeze on their assets. What do you think isn't being done? As the Syrian
stevenleser
Feb 2015
#7
There is broad agreement that "substantial" funds are still reaching ISIS from KSA and GCC states
leveymg
Feb 2015
#12
Do the numbers. Oil accounts for about 40%, that leaves a big hole in the Caliphate's budget
leveymg
Feb 2015
#15
Do what numbers? Do you have a number for ISIS's accountant? Do you have their Quicken account?
stevenleser
Feb 2015
#16
Believe it or not, they issue annual reports. Like any other foreign-held corporation.
leveymg
Feb 2015
#17
I did. My point stands. Provide their detailed sheet, not anecdotes in an article. nt
stevenleser
Feb 2015
#20
You wrote ISIS is "making money from selling Syrian and ... Iraqi oil" and a "universal freeze" on
leveymg
Feb 2015
#34
Note in particular the comments by the Syrian who sits on the UN Sec Council...
stevenleser
Feb 2015
#4
Why are you asking question #5 about their funding if the Syrians explain here how they are making
stevenleser
Feb 2015
#8
The possibility of blowback always exists with violence at the micro or macro level. As I noted in
stevenleser
Feb 2015
#32
Yep, group A may have done something wrong, but we can't do anything because "US Bad"
stevenleser
Feb 2015
#13
Not exactly. ISIS is evil but wouldn't likely exist without our actions. Actions with similar
TheKentuckian
Feb 2015
#41
I hate, hate, hate, hate war. BUT in this case I think you are all right about what we and the world
jwirr
Feb 2015
#30
this is a classic argument in favor of preemptive war - a Bushian defense of military intervention
bigtree
Feb 2015
#35
You so wonderfully make my point. You make a superficial analysis to say "this is all the same"
stevenleser
Feb 2015
#36
LOL. Do you even get how ridiculous your position is? Arguing Iraq/Saddam 2003 is the same as ISIS
stevenleser
Feb 2015
#39
There is no point to which to reply. You are making a ridiculous posit. Good luck with it. nt
stevenleser
Feb 2015
#43
Nothing new. I am for interventions where its justified and against those that aren't. nt
stevenleser
Feb 2015
#56
It will be different time is said every time and almost never in living memory has it been.
TheKentuckian
Feb 2015
#53
And if each of us had to live on betting their respective positions you'd have to hock your organs
TheKentuckian
Feb 2015
#62
From Gilda Radner...."There's always somthin'". Indeed. But once you're committed to Empire, the
libdem4life
Feb 2015
#47
One quibble: ISIS is already getting their asses kicked on all fronts. So why change tactics? nt
ieoeja
Feb 2015
#49
While I have no sympathy for groups like ISIS whatsoever, I'm also not inclined to engage in
Marr
Feb 2015
#60
Steven has been on Fox News many times. Leser is listed as a "Fox News Insider"
leveymg
Feb 2015
#64
Yep, I was there for a debate on Healthcare reform and suddenly Palin resigned. And they needed
stevenleser
Feb 2015
#71
Nope, she resigned several years ago. I talk about things happening as they happen. nt
stevenleser
Feb 2015
#97
LOL, that's not what that means. You get listed there for having a particularly hot debate.
stevenleser
Feb 2015
#70
On Election Night, 2012, Steve interviewed me on his radio show for my work on behalf of the Obama
msanthrope
Feb 2015
#107
Is that sort of like how the Washington Generals "play" the Harlem Globe Trotters?
leveymg
Feb 2015
#66
You mean like my desired candidate winning the Presidency the last two times?
stevenleser
Feb 2015
#73
You mean like the candidate who said he was a Liberal, then as president wasn't.
Octafish
Feb 2015
#103
I say exactly what I believe. And that happens to coincide with what most Liberals believe. nt
stevenleser
Feb 2015
#72
You mean like my desired candidate winning the Presidency the last two times? nt
stevenleser
Feb 2015
#75
And my answer is the same. The majority of Liberals and I support the same candidates. nt
stevenleser
Feb 2015
#79
Having been on his radio show, detailing my work as an voter protection attorney, I
msanthrope
Feb 2015
#108
I'm not going spend time going through your posts. I've seen enough to know you're wrong on most
stevenleser
Feb 2015
#80
Steve Leser was glad to have me on his show on Election Night, 2012, where I detailed
msanthrope
Feb 2015
#109
This creates big problems for those of you who want to continue honoring the Saudis and others
Bluenorthwest
Feb 2015
#87
The simple answer is that the Saudis are not engaging in wars of conquest where ISIS is.
stevenleser
Feb 2015
#98