It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Blood on Obama's Hands

page: 1
29
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:
+6 more 
posted on Aug, 3 2010 @ 10:51 PM
link   

Blood on Obama's Hands


frontpagemag.com

With the deaths of three additional U.S. troops on July 29, July officially became the bloodiest of the nine-year conflict in Afghanistan. The death toll for July was 63 and it captured the record as the deadliest month for Americans so far.
We all need to understand that the increase in deaths is directly the result of Obama’s personal mismanagement of the war.
Why? Upon taking management of defense policy, the Obama administration intervened to change the rules of engagement. Ralph Peters explained it this way in the New York Post: “Unle
(visit the link for the full news article)



[edit on 8/3/2010 by semperfortis]




posted on Aug, 3 2010 @ 10:51 PM
link   
Here you go folks..

Vietnam all over again.

When the politicians start running the military, it's the soldiers that pay for their incompetence; with their lives.

When I read this, I first got mad as hell, then I just grew more and more sad. More and more I thought of the fat cat politicians sitting in their mansions all safe and sound while my brothers and sisters are living in tents in sweltering heat, fighting and dieing for this country.

Dieing because some MORON that has never stepped into combat is making decision about the battle.

It is this simple.. Let the military fight the war or get the hell out.

frontpagemag.com
(visit the link for the full news article)



posted on Aug, 3 2010 @ 10:57 PM
link   
Say what you want about Bush, and most of you have time and again; he never tied the hands of our soldiers like this.

This is exactly the kind of crap that caused the massive casualties, and our eventual mass exodus in Vietnam.

MAN THIS FIRES ME UP




posted on Aug, 3 2010 @ 11:05 PM
link   
More information:


Sen. McCain and other supporters of the effort in Afghanistan have feared from the beginning of this process that Whie House politicos were trying to get the pesky military out of the policy loop.

Maybe it all turns out well in the end, but it's an interesting indication of how this administration runs foreign policy. Hope Hillary and Gates and the Joint Chiefs enjoy the ride.
As my colleague Clyde Middleton put it, it looks like LBJ all over again and we know how well that turned out!

Examiner




posted on Aug, 3 2010 @ 11:10 PM
link   
reply to post by semperfortis
 


It is getting very rough over there and you are right on the money when politicians begin commandeering command and control of military forces in the field it becomes a messy affair. We remember the perilous situation Vietnam became when to many cooks were in the kitchen. It ruined the soup. Sometimes the politician's have to stand back and allow the commanders to handle combat operations.

It is going out of control over there and the military is in a perilous situation. They have no objectives and are increasingly having to play footsie with the enemy. As the military remains timid, the Taliban is gaining ground in provinces along the Pakistan border. Now the article mentions fighting a war in a "Politically Correct," manner? Are you kidding me? That has got to be the most asinine way to fight a war I have ever seen!

No air or artillery support for soldiers bogged down because their may be civilians in the area? After reading this article I can see why General McChrystal was so upset and why he could not hold it in any further. Mr. President please back away for a moment and allow for your Generals to assess the situation on the ground in Afghanistan. Perhaps, you should stick to your golf game or weekend poker night with the Republicans and Democrats at the White House? It is not a game of laser tag and people are actually dying over there with casualties mounting every day.


+2 more 
posted on Aug, 3 2010 @ 11:16 PM
link   
I think every person who wants to lead a country, whether it is yours, mine or any other free land, should have military experience. Not pushing papers at some desk job at Fort Homeland and never get their hands dirty. Real, on the ground leading men experience.

Also, anyone who wants to be a federal politician with the ability to declare war, their children should be required to be part of the military.

Then when they have the idea to send young men off to die, they can at least say they know how it feels to have the bullets whizzing overhead. Might change a few minds of the bastards about being so quick to send other peoples kids off to die.

[edit on 3-8-2010 by GAOTU789]


+5 more 
posted on Aug, 3 2010 @ 11:17 PM
link   
reply to post by semperfortis
 



Say what you want about Bush, and most of you have time and again; he never tied the hands of our soldiers like this.


No, he only told the biggest fib in the history of the American race that got them sent to two war zones in the first place.

Ralph Peters is the same quasi journalist who called a traitor anyone who dared question the government's role and motives in the "war on terror". Now he is himself questioning the government's role and motives, I guess that makes him by his own admission a traitor?

He helped usher in the era in which anyone he doesn't display unflinching loyalty to the powers that be is branded a subversive.

I like this guy's take on Ralph Peters



posted on Aug, 3 2010 @ 11:24 PM
link   
^^As Stated Previously^^




posted on Aug, 3 2010 @ 11:27 PM
link   
Hey everyone, remember the following?

Actually, I suppose "you can take that to the bank" was a very appropriate way of putting it, considering what has happened to the banks since '08...






[edit on 8/3/10 by silent thunder]



posted on Aug, 3 2010 @ 11:28 PM
link   
The sad fact is politicians have no business trying to run combat operations from their safe little offices. It horrifies me no end that our boys and girls are risking their lives while some incompetent moron tries to manage something he knows nothing about. A war can not be run from D.C. Let those that know what they are doing handle it.

Obama's actions during this have proven he is no leader. A true leader knows when to stay out of it and let those whose job it is handle it.

This angers me to no end. As a vet myself I know how good our troops are and how quickly they can do the job when left alone. Micromanaging has never worked and certainly isn't working now.

As to the comments about Bush; he's like us all good points and bad points but at least while he was Commander in Chief he knew enough to let his generals do their jobs. At this point I'm less concerned with Bush's actions and far more concerned with Obama's.



posted on Aug, 3 2010 @ 11:33 PM
link   
NO there can't be blood on the fearless leaders hands.... some Obama Flunky better get over to him with a bowl of water and a towel so he can clean his hands..... ok enough Sarcasm.

Semper I was mad as hell after reading the link in your OP. gave you a S&F thanks for the OP.

Now..

Obama has no experience in the military and i think before anyone holds the office of POTUS they should beable to do the job of the Private standing watch on the front lines in a warzone!

So Maybe Mr. Obama should ditch his secret service protection, grab a rifle and man a post on the front lines in Afghanistan, And just see how long he sits their with his hands tied before he either gets himself killed or he starts shooting back at the enemy that has no rules of engagement to follow.

Sorry to all the weak stomache people that can't handle to see a little blood but war is hell. people die even the innocent people. But when Politicians start micromanaging the day to day operations of the Military durring a war U.S. Soldiers DIE! and its no ones Fault but the damn politicians that decide they know better than the people in the military that have to experience to fight and win a war.

Obama and his democrat control freaks haven't learned a damn thing since Vietnam. I take that back they have learned something. if they micromanage a war they can blame the military leaders public support for the war will drop and they can bring the troops home in disgrace.

Folks the war in Afghanistan is this generations Vietnam. Obama is this Generations LBJ! History is repeating itself right in front of your eyes.

Now my question is My fellow Americans do you see it happening? and if You do what in the hell are you going to do about it?



posted on Aug, 3 2010 @ 11:34 PM
link   
The generals, pentagon, or joint chiefs haven't had a clue on how to handle this war since day one. We're still fighting it - nine years later! And as some of the Wikileaks have shown, the military is killing unarmed civilians and not taking the necessary precautions to protect them (last time I checked, that was a war crime).



posted on Aug, 3 2010 @ 11:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by Blackmarketeer
The generals, pentagon, or joint chiefs haven't had a clue on how to handle this war since day one.


That's true if you take the stated reason for the war at face value.

Perhaps there are otherreasons for the war. For example, to deliver profits to military-industrial companies and contractors. Or to stimulate the economy in general. Or to establish an ongoing military presence in the region so no other "great power" (i.e., China, India, or Russia) gets its hands on what's left of a rapidly diminishing global oil supply.

Or a combination of all of the above. History shows that wars rarely take place for any one simple reason, despite the one-liner explanations tossed out to the drooling masses.

As always, my heart goes out to the men and women in uniforms, and their families, who suffer, whatever the reason. As well as to all innocent casualties on any side.



posted on Aug, 4 2010 @ 12:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by Blackmarketeer
The generals, pentagon, or joint chiefs haven't had a clue on how to handle this war since day one.


Since day one of the politicians running the war ...

Recall a little history.

When the generals ran the first gulf war it was basically over in 100 hours.

When the generals ran the Iraq war, it only took as long as it did to topple saddam because the SECDEF (a civilian politician) wouldn't give the military the resources it said it needed to do the job - but they still did it pretty quickly.

All the years that have happened since sit squarely on the shoulders of the politicians - who like McNamara before them - thought they were smart enough and experienced enough to run a war.

Maybe we need to do this more like the Romans did and send the presidents off to lead the troops personally. I'm quite convinced that in that situation obama would have been too scared to run for president ...



posted on Aug, 4 2010 @ 12:03 AM
link   
reply to post by silent thunder
 


Well said. I have no doubt the rabbit hole goes a lot deeper than we've ever been led to believe. Not only do defense industries reap massive profits with ongoing war, so does big oil with the military being the biggest consumer of petroleum (The US military oil consumption). Not forgetting the history between the Taliban and Unocol and oil execs in Texas.

But back the topic, maybe someone can explain to me what exactly changed with the rules of engagement here? Is it more than "don't target civilians"?



posted on Aug, 4 2010 @ 12:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by Blackmarketeer
reply to post by silent thunder
 


But back the topic, maybe someone can explain to me what exactly changed with the rules of engagement here? Is it more than "don't target civilians"?


Try this thread to get an idea. Only have to read the first few posts.



posted on Aug, 4 2010 @ 12:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by semperfortis
Say what you want about Bush, and most of you have time and again; he never tied the hands of our soldiers like this.

This is exactly the kind of crap that caused the massive casualties, and our eventual mass exodus in Vietnam.

MAN THIS FIRES ME UP



With all do respect, that's not true. I was in Iraq when Bush was in charge and throughout the time I was deployed, we watched the RoE get more strict.

There will always be a political side to war in this day in age. Especially in a war like the ones being fought in Iraq and Afghanistan. From my experience overseas and keeping up with the news, wars become more political as they go on.

The bottom line is that if you are fighting a war where you must have the respect of the local population, then the military is going to fight with it's hands tied behind it's back.



posted on Aug, 4 2010 @ 12:39 AM
link   
so basically the white house is trying to establish acceptable laws for conflict that can't be denied in international court.......that's one way to protect a business.


 
Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com
 



posted on Aug, 4 2010 @ 12:45 AM
link   
That's probably the most ridiculous statement I've heard out of you, ever, Semperfortis.

Let's first get something straight. This is guerilla warfare, an insurgency, and every day we have boots on ground over there they recruit more kids into the movement because NEWS FLASH: ALOT OF THEM HATE US.

Secondly, although Obama is now the Commander in Chief, the day-to-day management of troops, and the majority of orders issued come from the people DELEGATED the responsibility of running this war.

It is mind boggling to see people attributing the level of violence in the war to who is sitting in the oval office.

STOP THE MADNESS PLEASE.



posted on Aug, 4 2010 @ 12:45 AM
link   
The problem with these wars is that they are ideological wars being fought under false pretenses. The military has been grossly under reporting the number of civilian casualties, and when they can't kill indiscriminately they feel "hamstrung"? We're at the same point as we were in the Vietnam war (sorry, "conflict") we no longer have a military objective, just an occupation force hated by the local populace we trying to win the hearts and minds of.



new topics

top topics



 
29
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join