Blood on Obama's Hands

Originally posted by Blaine91555

What does Bush have to do with Obama's rules of engagement in Afghanistan! Nothing! What are you here to spread talking points that nobody in their right minds buys any more? Somebody tells the truth about Obama and you don't have a comeback go to Bush?

I will say this again, as obviously my post has been lost in the pages of the thread.

Obama does not oversee the terms of engagement in Afghanistan.

Neither did Bush.

The RoE is handled by the commander of forces in Afghanistan. The person who currently holds the position is General David Petraeus. Before him it was McChrystal, who (if you'll recall) came under criticism for tightening the RoE.

Blaming either Obama or Bush for the Rules of Engagement is misguided.



By the way: Petraeus Resets Airstrike Rules in Afghanistan


You army guys should seriously know this.

reply to post by drwizardphd


And you don't think that Obama's policies, currently being enforced by those he appoints such as the Commander in the field, influence those decisions?

The last Commander must have felt the same as you..

How did that work out for him?

Originally posted by semperfortis

And you don't think that Obama's policies, currently being enforced by those he appoints such as the Commander in the field, influence those decisions?

Until I see evidence that Obama's policies in any way affect the Rules of Engagement, I would have to assume that they do not.

Every single source I can find places jurisdiction over the RoE strictly in the hands of the commander of the forces.

I think, quite frankly, that it's disingenuous to place the blame for the RoE on Obama, when clearly David Petraeus is currently in charge of them.



It is worth mentioning, as I pointed out in my earlier post, that Petraeus is currently relaxing the strict RoE that were put in place by McChrystal.

I think you should be directing your anger towards McChrystal, as he is clearly responsible for the RoE that you believe (and probably rightly so) are claiming the lives of so many servicemen.



Edit: speeling

[edit on 4-8-2010 by drwizardphd]

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. 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]

You are half right. I also once believed that the leader of a country should have military experience but then again shouldn't the position of "leader" be available to all born citizens of their respective countries?

The empires of the past are gone even though many powerful "idiots" in the world are dieing for them to arise once again form the dead, they are history and military is no longer a requirement for successful leadership.

One of the reasons why a third world war has not occurred yet is because of the global economy! Capitalism and the republic/democratization ideology. When you have to prove to your people "Parliament/Senate/Representatives" why it is worth destroying the economy and going to war most will get a NO as an answer and for countries with other types of leadership like China, the reason for not going to war is because of the Economy alone! it is that powerful!

Leaders in the 21'st century should not have any military experience. However economic experience is of far grater importance! The major reasons for the failure of the US president Obama is and will be the economy.

reply to post by SLAYER69

OK, maybe if I type this very slowly so you'll get what I'm asking for.

Can you post something that states clearly from the UN that supports the claim that it was illegal?

Well it does seem that this is still a bone of contention for even those within the UN... However...

From 2004...

Iraq war illegal, says Annan

The United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan has told the BBC the US-led invasion of Iraq was an illegal act that contravened the UN charter.

The main pretence for the war in Iraq was weapons of mass destruction...

Although i believe that Sadam was an evil despot who killed his own people on countless occasions this alone is not a reason for war. If it was, we would be invading Burma, North Korea, Zimbabwe etc...

However, like I just said, it was all based around weapons of mass destruction and Sadams willingness to use them. As we now know sadam didn’t have WMD... or at least none we could find...

Unfortunately everything we say (all of us, on both sides of the argument) is nothing more than speculation and opinion influenced by whatever side of the political fence we sit on.

None of us will ever really know the truth... There is a massive smoke screen covering multiple story's and alleged facts.

My own personal stance is that the war was a sham... Nothing more than a foothold in the Middle East for political reasons. What has really changed in a thousand years?? No longer does religion justify the invasion of this area... Now it is Oil...

In my opinion... This war was nothing more than a strategic power grab and a fight over future resources.

Peace


[edit on 5-8-2010 by Muckster]

Originally posted by drwizardphd

Semperfortis, I shouldn't even have to tell you this (since you appear to be a former member of the service),

If he really was in service he would have already known about it. The reason for this thread is pretense to push radical right wing agenda nothing else. Nothing to debate here move on.

reply to post by Freedomrus

The empires of the past are gone even though many powerful "idiots" in the world are dieing for them to arise once again form the dead, they are history and military is no longer a requirement for successful leadership.

That is the stupidest thing I heard in a while, "leaders should not have military experience but only political and economic experience"....Why the hell do you think we are in these wars, for political and economic gain for the leaders. The average person on the street who is not in the military or in the corporations that profit from these wars, makes nothing from these wars but they will pay for them. And even if they were in the military or part of a corporation they wont make much, unless you are the top 1% of the pyramid, especially if your in the military and end up dead or a stain on the ground from some bomb.

One of the reasons why a third world war has not occurred yet is because of the global economy! Capitalism and the republic/democratization ideology. When you have to prove to your people "Parliament/Senate/Representatives" why it is worth destroying the economy and going to war most will get a NO as an answer and for countries with other types of leadership like China, the reason for not going to war is because of the Economy alone! it is that powerful!

Yet after all that talking and talking in politics and capitalism ideology's...America is still not getting much out of these wars, on average that is. The reason for going to war is for the economy alone, i agree...And that is why we are there because some people decided that it was in our interest to spend more money then the tax payers could pay on this...for economic interests...there interests. You see military interests are economic interests, and economic interests are military interests...the only difference is who gets the most out of it, so who is running your economy.
And the reason why the third world war hasn't happened yet is because, in this stage of the progress for total war we are still in the beginning, wars don't just happen over night they are long in the making eventually they reach a peak then tshtf.

Leaders in the 21'st century should not have any military experience. However economic experience is of far grater importance! The major reasons for the failure of the US president Obama is and will be the economy.

Wrong leaders should have no interest in any one way in that society, either militarily or politically or corporately, but the optimal should be experience in all areas. The reason we are in these third world countries is for economic reasons, lots of money can be made in wars for those who run economies and make the rules. And no # Obama will be blamed for the economy, he is the current president that is why he is there, to take the blame. As all presidents should. But if they are smart, don't become president when things are going down hill and there is lots of things to be done and fixed, only when there is much money to be made and the economy is going up...look at the bush presidency they were doing good for themselves and when things reached a point, they changed jobs, or the name of what there job is in another institution, and they are set for life. What you and many people wanted has come true...Capitalistic/corporatist by way of economic reasons are what is going on in this day and age. Military wing is a force for protection from other nations and is necessary in fact the reason we aren't speaking Chinese or Russian is because of lots of people with weapons in the military, but it can also be a tool for economic gain, just depends on who is doing the gaining.

I’m under the impression those numbers are incomplete. I don’t think those who are reporting those numbers have access to all the data on all american deaths and/or casualties.
My concern is the detainment of information and hinderance of information technologies. Are we sure these numbers accuratley reflect all American casualties to include all civilian contractors, all Afghani informants on the payroll for some American interest, and secret officers and field agents for various branches of intelligence gathering? I’m not convinced these numbers accuratley reflect the truth about American casualties.
From reading Semper’s openning post and supplied link:
frontpagemag.com...

Ralph Peters explained it this way in the New York Post: “Unless our troops in combat are absolutely certain that no civilians are present, they’re denied artillery or air support. If any civilians appear where we meet the Taliban, our troops are to ‘break contact’ — to retreat.”
Peters concludes, “When our own moral fecklessness murders those in uniform, it’s unforgivable. In Afghanistan, our leaders are complicit in the death of each soldier, Marine or Navy corpsman who falls because politically correct rules of engagement shield our enemies.”

Sen. John Kerry, Democrat of Massachusetts: Of Obama’s indecision, Kerry said in a Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing, “At the very moment when our troops and our allies’ troops are sacrificing more and more, our path and our progress seem to be growing less and less clear.”
frontpagemag.com...

A video interview by Judge Andrew Napolitano on Fox Business News blows this scandal wide open. When asked by Judge Napolitano why he should not be held responsible for potential deaths caused by the leak, Julian Assange, the founder of Wikileaks, answered that he contacted the White House about the leaks before they were released and asked them to review them.
The White House’s response? Nada.
They were too busy golfing, partying with Paul McCartney and spending the summer vacationing.
In subsequent e-mail conversations, Assange’s people clarified that they sought an administration response through The New York Times, and even The New York Times was ignored.
This is the part of the puzzle which could explain why Obama and his supporters have been trying to downplay this leak as unimportant.
If someone in the Obama administration had advance knowledge of this devastating leak and they did nothing to help limit the potentially fatal consequences to our soldiers and many valiant Afghani informants, Obama has every reason to downplay the leak.

Something I find intriguing is that President Barack Obama fired McChrystal in June because of what appears to me to be the same thing, leaking information to those who pay for those to act on what information they are not permitted to know about, (either the ones paying taxes for those to act on information they are not made aware of, or those following orders based upon the information they are not made aware of, to those who are being killed for reasons based upon information they are not made aware of. Apparently, it is against the law to know this information if you are empowering the system by voting and/or paying taxes. Apparently, it is against the law to know this information if you are just following orders by those who think they know the right information. This may be an assumption, though, since I do not know all the information.
So, if President Obama is guilty of subversion or of treason, then why aren’t those whom had foreknowledge of these things also not guitly, such as The New York Times, themselves, Julien Assange & Wikileaks, White House Staff? Maybe certain, if not all, laws are nullified by the available compliance. In other words, there are enough laws to nullify any and all laws in the correct mixture of situational awareness, or scenarios.

Civilian casualties rose by 31 percent — there were 1,271 dead and 1,997 wounded — in the first six months of this year over the same period in 2009. Taliban-led insurgents inflicted 76 percent of those casualties through stepped-up roadside and suicide bombings and an assassination campaign, according to the report.
"Compared with the same period in 2009, the number of civilians assassinated and executed by (the insurgents) surged by more than 95 percent in 2010," the report said. It added that more than half of such incidents occurred in the Taliban stronghold of southern Afghanistan, the current focus of U.S.-led military operations.
Civilian casualties caused by coalition and Afghan security forces fell by 30 percent during the first half of this year, to 223 deaths and 160 wounded, the report said. It added that airstrikes in populous areas caused the largest share of casualties, 31 percent.
www.mcclatchydc.com...
Read more: www.mcclatchydc.com...

Some interesting links for additional information:
www.msnbc.msn.com...
www.strategypage.com...
www.commondreams.org...
www.afji.com...
www.ewross.com...

Originally posted by semperfortis
It is this simple.. Let the military fight the war or get the hell out.

We are not this incompetent

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 think the military’s hands were tied before Bush was president. I think Bush’s hands were tied before he was president. I don’t always think this way, but I can’t refute the proof my senses have provided me with, having spent more than a decade in the military, and more than 3 years in warzones. The fog of war can be utilized as opportunities to someones’ and/or someone’s benefits, it would seem.

I say the military was tied before Bush took office, and I can provide an example:
The United States Air Force Core Values (their sworn foundation)
1) Integrity First
2) Service Before Self

Integrity first is interpreted by myself, in accordance with definitions and synonyms, as being compliant with the facts, first and foremost. In order to be compliant with the facts, I need to know the information, I need to know the facts.

Service before self is interpreted by myself, in accordance with definitions, as being the opposite of selfishness before service, aka self pre-serve or the opposite of self preservation.

Now, relying somewhat on my own critical thinking and considering the relationships between the causalities/effects, of the two first core values of the USAF, I cannot totally dispute that one way to interpret this could be:
Fear is an instinctual reflex and natural byproduct of “Self Preservation”.
Being compliant with the facts (first core value), any true airman would know that any order or action or behavior taken that invokes fear is directly reinforcing actions, behaviors, intentions, dna priorities, that are in fact the direct opposite of their second cor value of service before self.
A mental roadblock set at the foundation of the USAF that together with their oath of enlistment creates scenarios in which compliance is not really an option. How does any member of the U.S. Air Force claim the ethical or moral high ground by participating in a system in which they cannot lead by example, simply because they fail to live up to the example they are “taught” or claim to endorse?

It may be fair to share this tidbit of information I learned from a first shirts meeting:
The core values of the USAF were adopted and written by “successful” corporations.

Originally posted by semperfortis
It is this simple.. Let the military fight the war or get the hell out.

Winning this war was not on the policy makers agenda, or the war would have been won.
Their agenda is opportunistic, no bid contracts, contracts they get paid for, but do not abide by.
I witnessed this firsthand in Balad AB (camp Anaconda) in Iraq. A subsidiary of a well known corporation had received a 2.1 million dollar contract to replace and reservice all portable fire extinguishers for the base, annually. This was mid/late 2006. The same company had not been fulfilling the contract, rather they had been referring & sending all personnel needing fire extinguisher maintenance or replacement to the fire department (of which I was NCOIC of the FACC (*Fire Alarm Communications Center) & 911).
In turn, as was written in our Standard Operating Procedures, we were buying new fire extinguishers from the same company who was not upholding their contract, because we did not have the proper resources for reservicing them, as the machines for doing so had been on order from the same companies sister company ….. for over two years time.

So, essentially, American tax payers paid 6.3 million dollars from 2003 to 2006 for a service that was not being provided, and also paying that same company for new fire extinguishers since they were not providing the services the contract stated.

And where did those profits go? Who did what with that money?

Originally posted by semperfortis
It is this simple.. Let the military fight the war or get the hell out.

Semper,
If it were as simple as that, we would have won by now. This is some families’ free for all, manipulation of information, and misdirection of effective observation, me thinks.

[edit on 12-8-2010 by Esoteric Teacher]

reply to post by Esoteric Teacher


WWIII meets marketing geniuses = GLOBAL WAR ON TERROR
Those are some of my thoughts, and some of my thoughts based on my experiences and the perspectives granted to me.

i share these things simply as examples to support that there are many aspects of what is really going on that we may be ignorant of. fire extinguishers in warzones' budget? less than a sliver of the pie chart.

Try to have a nice day,
et


[edit on 12-8-2010 by Esoteric Teacher]

reply to post by semperfortis


agreed it does remind of me lbj mr mircomanger himself

mr obama and the miss live it up go on vactions and americans are dying


fired up doesnt even begin to describe my feelings on the subject....


i ask myself what are they fighting for what ?
when they look back and see what goes on here in our country today

to me i didnt think that there people like that who live here...
they go and fight and sadly they are dying and for what?


agree let them do what they are trained to do or bring them the hell home.

duty,honor,courage,country,brotherhood those are not hollow words to those men and women those are the words they live by everday. those words are not mere words in some hollywood movie those words have real meaning real truth.

its high time mr obama you stop robbing these men and womens futures and start GIVING them one.

those people will have my everlasting gratitude, and love

and respect now and forever.


[edit on 12-8-2010 by neo96]

reply to post by name pending

Originally posted by drwizardphd

Semperfortis, I shouldn't even have to tell you this (since you appear to be a former member of the service),

If he really was in service he would have already known about it. The reason for this thread is pretense to push radical right wing agenda nothing else. Nothing to debate here move on.

Let's see.. are you a n00b here?

Registered: 15-6-2010

Yep, you're a newbie. You know nothing about Semperfortis' background.

I'd give you a youthful indiscretion pardon, but it's really not my call. It's up to semper to decide whether he beotch slaps you into next week.

Originally posted by mishigas

I'd give you a youthful indiscretion pardon, but it's really not my call. It's up to semper to decide whether he beotch slaps you into next week.

that is not semper's way. semper does not slap.

after one endures invoking a semper rebuttall/retaliation, find what you can to use as gauze to stop the bleeding. do not remove bandages, padding or gauze you have already applied, just layer them on top of eachother, and seek immediate Profesional medical, psychological, and spiritual assistance.

if you can feel any part of the size 10 & 1/2 wide boot that was planted knee deep in your backside, try to pull it out gently, or find a friend to do it for you.

note: it may be easier to extricate such boot via the oral cavity, instead.

If one survives a first retaliation from semper, do not seek another encounter....

[edit on 13-8-2010 by Esoteric Teacher]

reply to post by Esoteric Teacher


Very good!

Speaking of boots, I would not like to be in the n00b's boots right now!

reply to post by semperfortis


Hey ST,

If the MILITARY is EVER given an objective by the political asses, and the military is allowed to do what is necessary, the object is achieved.

When the Political situation in combined with the military, what is the ultimate outcome?

The SAME as it has always been.

The military HAS to speak up. Yes, they have made it ILLEGAL, but NOT unlawful. This CRAP has to stop. The MILITARY has one and ONE oath only, to uphold the Constitution, against foreign and DOMESTIC enemies.

You have been told, that the government has become de facto and the de jure system resides in the PEOPLE.

Tell me, where do I stop the problem. You HAVE to submit to the de jure system.

That is the LAW of the land. When the HELL does it become law?

I don't blame Obama for anything. Reason being is that Obama is a peace loving idiot. What was the first thing he did when he got in office? A world peace tour where he proceeded to perform fellatio on every world leader even the ones of countries that hate us. Is the war over in the Middle East justified? Damn straight it is. Or at least it is to this Marine. I'd go in to why I think so, but I'd just get the regular "you're brainwashed" speech and I'm tired of hearing idiots that have no idea, but think they know all give me that speech.

The rules of engagement in country suck. You basically have to be shot before you can return fire. The politicians that are making up the ROE are seriously screwing those who are in the field fighting. It's getting stricter and stricter, and eventually it's going to get to the point where American men and women will die more regularly than they already are.

Iraq is pretty much over. We're in Afghanistan now. It's a much different ball game now. In Iraq we were basically up against militant guerrillas with little to no military training at all. In Afghanistan, we're up against actual military trained men that know how to use tactics. Not just that, but they are getting smarter and smarter and they're starting to figure out how we work and how they can beat us. They'll attack in crowded villages, they'll attack from a playground occupied by children. They know what we can and can not do, they know our usual tactics. The know out SOPs. We are up against an enemy that will fight us not only with bullets and bombs, but with the media and populace as well. The tactics they are using are making us look like the bad guys. The civilian deaths from misfires, those aren't Marines, Sailors, Soldiers and Airmen firing on innocent people because they're bored, it's happening because the insurgents are setting it up that way. Unless you've been there and seen how these [Expletive Deleted] fight, you can't really understand where I'm trying to come from. This is why the ROE are getting more and more strict. Don't get me wrong, there are accidents. We are only human, but we're not murderers.

Obama is not at fault for this, I want to reiterate that. He's too much of a wuss to get credit for anything war related even if it is tragic. The ones to blame for the strict ROE, and thus the deaths of more Americans is the enemy insurgents.

Forget military experience, we need a real peacenik in the white house like Dennis Kucinich.

Demanding a president have military experience only promotes the military-industrial complex.

reply to post by drwizardphd




I would go so far as to say that the RoE are influenced by public opinion. Public outcry over Abu Ghraib and waterboarding surely affected operations in Iraq, for example. And it trickles upward from there.

Petraeus' face may be on the official RoE, but he is influenced heavily from back home.

Originally posted by Loki
every day we have boots on ground over there they recruit more kids into the movement because NEWS FLASH: ALOT OF THEM HATE US.

They hate us no matter where we are. Hate is part of their cult and those in charge there continually feed the hate. The Imams in charge of the cult need their subjects to hate an enemy otherwise the people would wake up and see the Imams for what they are. Exploiters. It's that way in most major religions. Without an enemy to fight, real or imagined, the religion dies.

Obama is now the Commander in Chief,

Yes, isn't that sad? Some guy from Chicago with no clue about military operations is in charge of running a war. That is both sad and frightening.

America, with all our power and might and technology, could easily have won this war years ago but the politicians and those in charge of the factions don't want peace. Peace puts them out of business. And by 'them' I mean those running both sides of the war.