Blood on Obama's Hands

reply to post by Ashyr


S+F

WOW

I knew it!

reply to post by semperfortis


I also weep for the young people dying for nothing, but on the other hand they aught to know better than to join the US military.

When my young nephew before the Iraq war said to me “I think I’ll go join to fight Saddam”

I literally screamed at the top of my lungs that he was a fool and a dupe becasue if he did that he was going to die so Cheney, and those of his ilk, can have a bigger and better golf course.

To this day he hasn’t spoken to me since. But I don’t care. . . . BECASUE HE IS ALIVE!

reply to post by OrionHunterX


So there a separate thread on this? GOOD.

I've been waiting for one but must have missed it.

This is EXACTLY the kind of travesty that should have EVERY American screaming.

Edit to Add: Yes, I have been...to Congress. Not that that helps but if enough people do, you never know.

[edit on 8/4/2010 by ~Lucidity]

Originally posted by GAOTU789
I think every person who wants to lead a country, whether it is yours, mine or any other free land, should have military experience. 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. Might change a few minds of the bastards about being so quick to send other peoples kids off to die.

Didn't change Hitler or Stalin's mind.

Support our troops and bring them home. Many of the civilians, appointees and elected politicians in the city/state of the District of Columbia, are a bunch of usurping stinkers. They don't care about the republic of these United States or our future. They don't care about our boys in the bloody battle.
With all the mineral wealth, it should be easy to start Afghanistan mining corporations to bring some jobs and prosperity to the region. Why Not?
Listening to Webster Tarpley, Afghanistan is just a diversion in the regional strategy. The real target is Pakistan because they have nukes and real estate that if not destabilized, could be used as an energy corridor from Iran to India and China. Brezinsky's "The Grand Chessboard" was written in 1998? Obama is his prodigy.
Pakistan is becoming destabilized and action will be required to secure those nukes. Our country is being destabilized also. Uh, this is serious.

War is neither pretty, or glamerous or glorieous, it is dirty, nasty, rough and hard on both sides. The civillian force of the country is that which permits for the civillian government to have oversite and to determine the direction of the millitary. This was done to prevent a military force from uprising against the people and overthrowing the government. This is a good idea, as it is the civillians and the country that a military is there to protect, defend and serve.
The problem with the Iraq and Afganistan conflicts, is that the federal government does not understand the nature of war or the rules to win one. They have set no goals, and have often constrained the military from doing its job in favore of trying to either gain a political backing, or to make the other side look bad. The politicians are playing a very dangerous game at the expense of not only the military, but also that of the country at large.
Atrocities happen in war, people die, that is the nature of any armed conflict or war. But to turn the war around and to win it, means doing the one thing that no one wants to admit to doing, or willing to stick their neck out on the line and that is to release the full might of the military, setting actual goals and letting the military fight to win, not to just hold them back. A soldier or military person should not have to call in to get permission to fire back when being fired on, and the use of deadly force should be authorized and in effect. If you look at the battles that the US has won and lost, you will see that there were several things that occured and happened to make such possible. The first was an actual goal/end point. This was important to let not only the people in the country know when the conflict would be over, but also the troops there fighting it. This is important, cause if the government loses the civilian support, then the military will lose. The other aspect and this has been true since the first time it came out, and that is that the politicians need to step back and point, stating go beat up the bad guy, here are the conditions we want to see for victory and then back the military up, no matter what. By doing that then they take the gloves off, and release the military to use their full force. Anything else and you will have mass causalties and a conflict that seems to just drag on.

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.

Politically, I'm about as far to the right as you can get, but I disagree with you here. My #1 criticism of GWB is that he did not fight the Iraq war properly at all. We never really saw Shock and Awe and what we did see was over far too quickly. Had we truly intended to "win" the Iraq war outright, we'd have shelled the living hell out of Baghdad until Saddam's body (and the rest of Iraq's most wanted) were presented to us on a silver platter. Ground troops were sent in too early and were given far too many restirctions on engagement and offense and in many cases were told to simply take large amounts of fire before conducting a half-assed retalliation/defense.

That war could have been a massive swift victory in a matter of a week, instead it became a morass because of an adoption of this modern huggy-kiisy, kinder-gentler war farce which America adopted. War is ugly, brutal, and viscious... and it always should be. War has been bastardized into a profit grabbing obscenity in which the more powerfull side often handicaps itself rather than going balls to the wall and laying down the entirety of their might to force the enemy to break.

If you haven't noticed...

Every president since Reagan has blood on his hands, including goofy Ronald.

Bush went into Kuwait.
Clinton got soldiers killed in Somalia and bombed Kosovo.
W. got 2000 Americans killed on 9/11, invaded Afghanistan and Iraq, didn't do much about Katrina and beyond.
Obama is now a war president thanks to Bush and quite a few soldiers and civilians in the Middle East have died. However, these aren't his wars. Hopefully, his promise will be kept what he said about Iraq this month.

So before you go on bashing Obama about "blood on his hands" when it comes to war that HE DID NOT START...go look at history first...or keep watching your propaganda hate machine.

Cheers.

[edit on 4-8-2010 by SeventhSeal]

Originally posted by Ashyr

I'm disgusted you posted this and I'm even more revolted at the idea someone starred it. Absolutely amazing the ignorance this website carries on it's shoulders.

Eeben Barlow, former head honcho of one of the world's first PMC's, South African Executive Outcomes, and one of my favorite milsec blog authors, have an interesting article on his blog about politicians trying to play armchair generals, and the effects thereof, if anyone's interested. He's what I, at least, would describe as a military-tactical genius, and most certainly know what he's talking about.

Me, I would think it natural. Just as we don't want military juntas playing politicians, we don't want corrupt nepotistic scumbags...sorry, politicians...trying to do the military's job either.

As Jerry Pournelle wrote in his military science fiction epos "the Prince" (also known as Falkenberg's Legion): "You tell us what to do, but we decide how to do it". That's the way it's supposed to work, that's the way it's designed to work, and that's THE ONLY WAY IT WILL EVER WORK!

Until the politicians of the world realize that, more soldiers will continue to die where they would not have to if the politicians hadn't stepped beyond their station in "the system".

[edit on 4-8-2010 by David_Reale]

[edit on 4-8-2010 by David_Reale]

Originally posted by semperfortis

Blood on Obama's Hands

frontpagemag.com


[edit on 8/3/2010 by semperfortis]

In the legal world, if not for the first event then the second event would not have happened. For example, if I decide to drive without a license then get into a wreck that was not my fault, then I am responsible for the wreck.

It would not have happened if I just followed the law to begin with.

Bush drove without a license and caused a big wreck in which Obama was a victim. Now the rest of us are caught in a traffic jam. But wait, Bush left the scene of the crime. Everyone knows he didn't have a license but no one will arrest him.

I'm reminded of a Clinton quote:

Bill Clinton – as quoted by senior White House reporter Sarah McClendon in reply to why he wasn’t doing anything about UFO disclosure.
Sarah, there’s a government inside the government, and I don’t control it.

www.hillaryclintonufo.net...

It's hard to know what any president does do, doesn't do, is allowed to or not allowed to do.

The war in A-stan is never going to get anything accomplished until the Joint Chiefs pull together and tell the politico's to take a hike and start running a military operation to remove all the possible safe havens for the taliban or just pull us out of there and refit the entire military for the upcoming "war" with iran. Troops aren't meant to stay in combat that long with no clear mission. Forget about stabilizing that country. Forget about forming a government. Let our troops fight the good fight or bring them home.

[edit on 4-8-2010 by CosmosKid]

Originally posted by semperfortis
^^As Stated Previously^^

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.

I love these posts that set-up a pseudotrap for future posters by predicting that someone will have an opposing point of view ... and then when they do, the fact that you've divinely prophesied such supposedly gives your argument some sort of higher credence.

In actuality, it is juvenile, amateurish and indicates, as usual, a specious argument to begin ... which of course yours is. But aside from that, Blackmarketeer's post was certainly relevant and true. Why dismiss, rather then confront?

Didn't bother with the rest of the thread, but I do wonder if you posted a "blood on Bush's hands" thread during the eight-year travesty he reigned over? Because that would indicate a sincere point, rather than a political one. I checked to see but only saw sympathetic posts for Bush and how victimized he was. Imagine that.

[edit on Aug 04, 2010 by Hadrian]

[edit on Aug 04, 2010 by Hadrian]

Hello ATS!!!!! You think it is president Obama doing this. All the presidents with the exception of one, President Kennedy, were beholden to the puppet masters PTB. If you review history President Kennedy was going to shut down the Federal Reserve, Pull out of Vietnam, and do away with the CIA. Look what it got him. President Obama better fall lock step with the corporate military industrial complex or his pumpkin will explode as well. Don,t point to this left right paradigm republican democrat crap. All you see there is nothing more than your daily soap opera to keep you occupied while the PTB eviscerate our constitution and reek havoc. What can be done? Educate as many as possible.

Yes, it's official, people don't like to be colonized.

On a lighter note, new generations of Americans now understand - and in a very lifelike way - the watered down stories told to them in their high school American history classes regarding the wholesale slaughter of the Native Americans.

Of course, I'm sure we don't have designs on moving hoards of "Americans" to Afghanistan. However, I'm absolutely sure we DO want to import our brand of Western Civilization (and all the fun that comes with it) to one of the last bastions of tribal society in Eurasia.

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"?

I must be getting old.

I forgot what uniform the enemy combatants wear so I can tell them apart from the non-combatants?]

[edit on 4-8-2010 by Nite_wing]

Originally posted by Blackmarketeer
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.

He did? I thought the CIA did, not Bush.

This is a 2nd line.

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

Do you think people like Obama, Pelosi and Reid have a clue how to fight it, and it ought to be in their hands??

Originally posted by Blackmarketeer
We're still fighting it - nine years later!

Didn't know the war had a "freshness date" that it had to be won by...

Originally posted by Blackmarketeer
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).

Wrong. Intentionally killing civilians is a war crime. For example, an insurgent setting off a car bomb in a crowded market, killing women and children is a war crime.