Originally Posted by John Voorpostel
Yemen, Libya, Ukraine, Syria, Egypt, Tunisia, Algeria not to mention the unprecedented drone strikes in Somalia, Pakistan. Obama's main legacy in Africa is the destroying Libya and in doing so set back African unity for decades. Turning a prosperous country into a glorified slave market[color:#CC0000][/color]

Sue, none of these conflicts were started by Obama and much of US responses were done with the United nations or NATO as a group decision and deployment. Definitely true in the case of Libya, which was a UN action (it included UK, French, Canadian ships\forces and others), and Syria, which the US actually stayed out of until his hand was forced by Assad's chemical attacks on his own people....and which stopped because of the strikes.


What was unilateral was drone strikes designed to take out specific terrorist targets. Now unfortunately civilians too were killed...but the main target was terrorism...who btw killed more of their own countrymen than did drone strikes.

Most of the wars and revolts you cite were due to the "Arab Spring" which started in Tunisia when a fruit seller was shaken down by a corrupt police force. A combination of other corrupt governments and the power of social media exported the Arab Spring to those other countries

So to paint Obama as some kind of war monger due to the War on Terrorism (started under Bush) and to say that by helping Lybians get rid of Ghadaffi he actually set back the African agenda goes counter to the facts. Africa would never have united around Lybia, and Somalia was fighting internally ...formally from 1991 to about 2012 ...and the US was largely there in the early ninetees under HW Bush

Bottom line

1) Obama started no wars but inherited Iraq and Afghanistan...and remember Iraq was largely based on a lie put forward by Cheney et al
2) Obama definitely acted against other countries experiencing a civil war...but mostly in conjunction with the UN or NATO
3) Obama definitely sent in drones...but these were meant as surgical strikes to take out specific terrorist targets

Now I am not saying he was "lily white" in everything...just that your narrative is not supported by the facts



John, facts are almost never facts. There is always a way to slant the facts. I have heard and read people, columnists, news people, commentaters calling Obama a Marxist, a Socialist, a Racist, a terrorist sympathizer and a terrorist, as well as a war ciminal, a liar, etc etc etc. I have also read others who say what a kind man he is, what a great president he was, how much he did for this country, how his healthcare plan was so great.

You dont have the facts, you have your interpretation of the facts.

I guess its always been this way, if you read English History books they dont mention US kickin their azz very much if at all.

It just now, its even worse. You cant trust any source any more, and even our own judgement of the facts can be wrong.

We can have a video of somebody murdering somebody and somehow it can be slanted and that person can be found innocent....or at least not guilty

Mathematics is about the only thing that deals with facts. 1+1 will always be.... wait a minute here.... 2 right? Just checking

Science changes every day, history has multiple story lines, pick your favorite.

Dangerous times especially now with the internet and the media everywhere.

When I see a guy on CNN or Fox I immediately dont believe them, or their slant. Even if they believe it.

I somewhat believe the general news man on regular news, but those stations are biased also


Last edited by Fdemetrio; 10/01/19 05:11 PM.