VERSIONS: روسيا اليوم NOTICIAS FREEVIDEO ИНОТВ RTД RSS
breakingnews
Go to main page   News   Blogs   Doug Wead   Obama’s changes. Can you believe in them?   Comments  
mostpopular
photo_of_the_day
bestvideos

Obama’s changes. Can you believe in them?

Published: 07 October, 2009, 13:19
Edited: 10 May, 2012, 18:26

Once in office, presidents often change their opinion or just “forget” their campaign promises. And they are notorious for saying falsehoods. Of course, we all “forget” and misspeak but because presidents do it in living color on the public stage it can be a little more embarrassing. Obama’s situation is a bit different. We cut him a lot of slack because he is our first African American...

Comments (4):

michael, October 07, 2009, 12:23 quote
0
The quality "YOU" want in a president? His color is of no importance to me, He makes no changes although he tries. I do not like him, because he has the hopes of many many American people pinned upon him... and he is going to fail miserably, because he has a war on his hands, and the American people just blindly follow a false hope.
Bogdanov, October 08, 2009, 03:59 quote
0
A couple of thoughts... 1. Obama came ahead of his time. America is not ready yet for him. And, therefore, he is not understood by the nation. Americans brought him on the top of the Hill by storm and nowadays seem surprised themselves what they have done. And that confuses Obama. From one hand we won because people wanted to see the change he was talking about. From the other hand, when he is trying to do what he promised, Americans refuse to accept it. This may explain this uncertainty he exhibits these days. I would be freaked out as well. 2. I, personally, think that Obama's purpose and his role in the history of America is not yet defined and understood. It will be known some time later. Similar to Gorbachev, who arrived on the horizon of the struggling Soviet political system as a agent of change and hope. And he triggered the events which dramatically changed the country. In that sense, he, clearly, fulfilled that role -- Russia is quite different today comparing to the moment when he took control of the country. But, ironically, Gorbachev played his role as a Destroyer. And, in the memory of Russians he will remain as a weak leader. He was popular abroad, but unpopular in his country. Because, the country transformation didn't go the way Gorbachev planned originally. And it didn't go the way Russians expected and hoped. And that transformation was painful and ugly. But, at the end, Russia turned to the country which many Russians would, probably, prefer. So, I am thinking, -- may be Obama's role is to change the American society? And this is not about what Obama wants or what Americans want. Only God knows where it suppose and will go. May be the time has come. Possibly, in 20 years or something Americans will find that they live in pretty much different country. And, they may be pleased by that. 3. I do not completely understand, why Americans are always whining about their Presidents and Governments. Isn't it a Capitalist country where everybody suppose to be responsible for themselves and do not expect anybody else solving their problems? Or this is a State Socialism (like USSR), there government takes responsibility for its citizens? So, I am confused...
Phil Marx, October 08, 2009, 20:32 quote
0
Bogdanov, I think that Gorbachev realized that Russia was militarily extended beyond its economic capacity. Given this fact, a major transition was inevitable. Gorbachev tried to ease Russia out of it’s unsustainable empire status, but when you shift the foundation the building is almost certain to crumble no matter how careful you are. I don’t think Gorbachev’s decision to not intervene as the eastern satellites began defecting was done out of benevolence but with the realization that Russia could simply not afford such a venture. I believe my country is now rapidly approaching the same position that Russia was in twenty years ago. I think that our own recent decision to not install missiles in Poland and Czech Republic is done largely because of the same circumstances Russia was faced with at the time. Obama is smart enough to realize that we are nearly maxed out and that extending our full military umbrella to those areas will cost far more than the benefits. Remember how Gorbachev’s new found friends, Reagan/Bush, repaid Russia’s decision to back down by extending the U.S. empire virtually to Russia’s own front door? Well, I think that Medvedev/Putin will respond to my own country’s regression with the same feigned concern. I think Russia’s recent flexing in Georgia and other areas, with little more than token opposition from U.S. is a sign of the times to come. So, while I agree with your assessment that Gorbachev is probably viewed by most Russians in a negative light, I should point out that if he had not been so realistic about the situation and instead tried to maintain an overextended position for much longer, then the Russia of today would be in a far worse position than it is. You have to break something down first in order to rebuild it better, and Gorbachev’s destruction was actually the precursor to Russia’s phoenix. And regarding your confusion about U.S. politics, don’t feel bad as I have the same problem. My country is increasingly becoming polarized between extreme capitalism and extreme socialism. When compromise is considered a dirty word, failure is inevitable. The dichotomy is just as absurd on social issues, but it is the economic dysfunction that will bring us down.
johnx, October 10, 2009, 01:58 quote
0
All poloticians lie I guess that if they didn’t they wouldn’t be elected. Better to hear a nice lie than a hard truth. "So all presidents forget or change their minds or tell lies. Even so, Reagan was a consistent foe to Soviet Imperial expansion and ended the Cold War. Clinton balanced the budget. Bush the younger kept us safe after 9/11. They all have some bragging rights." Actually the Soviet Union collapse because it was withheld banking loans and depreciation in the value of oil which the Soviet system had it not received banking loans from western banks collapsed under all the regimes. By the 70’s taking advantage of the Jackson-Vanik amendment the USSR used it as a conduit for the black market economy to keep the Soviet economy afloat. And it had more to do with estimations of Europe’s future energy demands calculate during the mid 70’s Europe’s future would be dependent on Eurasian oil and gas then under USSR control hence Brezinski/Gates initiative under Carter administration to secretly train and finance Afghan Islamic guerrillas 6 months prior to the Soviet invasion hence it’s strategic position to push into Central Asia and the wars in Yugoslavia, Chechnya, Tajikistan, Islamic insurgency in Xinjing and Kashmir. All of which perhaps maybe Kashmiri separatists are supported and financed by the CIA through organisations like NED. No coincidence that Brezinski was and is at the forefront who policy and lobbying against Serbia and Russia. In fact if you notice all the areas of highest Islamic fighting since the collapse of the USSR they are in geo-political areas with untaped oil reserves to be developed like Algeria. In the Balkans Clinton and his staff helped facilitate the establishment of international terrorism in Europe including Bin Laden personally meeting the President of Bosnia in 95 as well as Atta and KSM. As for bush protecting the US after 9/11 the fact that not a single terror cell has been convicted planning attacks against the US on domestic soil or credible evidence for Intel of an attack from abroad and even the CFR admitted the Taliban were not supporting Al Qaeda and Bin Laden did not run the camps in Afghanistan and there is no evidence connecting Afghanistan and Bin Laden to 9/11 (check out his FBI most wanted list on there website). The Taliban itself was created in the mid 90’s by the CIA/ISI. And all the links lead to the hijackers are the US closest allies Britain, Germany, France, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia. So Bush has helped spur the decline of the US dollar by getting it in trillions of dollars in debt by launching pointless protractive wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, massive hike in the defence budget and continuing borrowing from abroad .
POST COMMENT

By posting your comment, you agree to abide by our posting rules


CAPTCHA image