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: Russia shelling Ukraine across the countries’ shared border, according to forensic analysis [View all]Octafish
(55,745 posts)62. Hide from you? LOL. Here's what a real expert thinks.
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
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
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
Russia shelling Ukraine across the countries’ shared border, according to forensic analysis [View all]
SidDithers
Feb 2015
OP
they will say that since they fired on the fascist warmongers it is perfectly justified.
hobbit709
Feb 2015
#1
Doesn't change the fact that Russia agreed to respect Ukraine's territorial integrity
NuclearDem
Feb 2015
#28
Blah, blah ....... I've gone through this with you so many times it's beyond boring. nt.
polly7
Feb 2015
#44
Putin says it was a coup so they are sticking to that story. Putin has quite a few fans in America
Cha
Feb 2015
#109
The usual suspects insist it was a "coup"..they've been fed that and they're sticking to their story
Cha
Feb 2015
#107
That's right.. it wasn't a coup. But, since Putin says it was a "coup".. they stick to that story.
Cha
Feb 2015
#108
Go ahead and show us the evidence that the Ukrainian presidential and parlimentary elections....
Tommy_Carcetti
Feb 2015
#63
Sure, but are they salted? Really, you're getting sad with the insults. That one is just
polly7
Feb 2015
#80
As is your constant bullshit and unwillingness to engage in substantive discussions with anyone
HERVEPA
Feb 2015
#81
Your constant bullshit and insults are neverending, why the fuck would I involve myself
polly7
Feb 2015
#82
You did ask very nicely, but you'll never get an intellectually honest answer, just talking points.
Tarheel_Dem
Feb 2015
#88
I think you should stop doing exactly what you're accusing me of, especially when
polly7
Feb 2015
#57
"You started it all and have in this thread posted complete fucking lies."
Tommy_Carcetti
Feb 2015
#68
''The Putin boot-lickers will have an answer for this, surely.'' -- SidDithers of DU
Octafish
Feb 2015
#23
Sadly, that's pretty much the long and the short of the rhetoric going on. nt
Tommy_Carcetti
Feb 2015
#89
You and Cass Sunstein may want to forgive Bushes lying America into war. Not me.
Octafish
Feb 2015
#106