Obama Or Bush Same Difference

 War, what is it good for asked Edwin Starr and the answer is killing people but not civilians, especially if you do what the United States have done and changed the definition of a civilian.
After the first few days of dropping explosives from on high and the first reports of civilian deaths, the Pentagon have announced that they are confident that no civilians were killed in any of the initial air strikes in Syria.
Always a touchy subject and after more and more reports of Afghan civilian deaths from American drones, the White House redefined exactly what a 'civilian' and a 'combatant' is so now a combatant is a military-aged males killed in a strike zone although explicit intelligence posthumously proving them innocent does nudge them back into the civilian pile of dead folk.
Now that Obama has launched his second bout of war, just missing a third by a whisker in Syria last time, we can justifiably say that he is just as bad as his predecessor who was rightly condemned by the World and his aunt when he began the whole debacle in motion in 2003.
Throw in the turmoil in Ukraine fired off by American meddling, the drone attacks in Pakistan and the funding of Syrian Rebels who turned into ISIS, Obama has an awful track record of starting conflict around the world. 
The latest conflict has even began without UN backing which is due to be discussed today and is sure to be vetoed by China and Russia so he even has the illegal war to cement the Bush likeness.   
As Obama has already decided to go to war and then use the UN to rubber stump it, even if it is refused the war will still be on and bombs will continue to be dropped left, right and centre so he's not that different from Bush in reality.
The only difference is that this one is a Nobel Prize for Peace laureate justifying yet another bombing campaign in the Middle East.