Blood on Obama's Hands

reply to post by Blackmarketeer


I wouldn't paint the picture as bad as not being able to kill indiscriminately.

Here is an example, one unit had to call superiors and ask for permission to fire when being fired upon. My unit had a problem with them wanting us to follow the Iraqi traffic laws. I can understand why they would want us to drive on one side of the road; however, a traffic jam is a perfect opportunity for a VBIED (car bomb). It's just too easy to go into oncoming traffic and avoid getting blown up.

Originally posted by silent thunder
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...

Good catch. One of many examples of obama's vow to have transparency in government. Sounded like a good goal at the time, 'til you realize he must have meant he intends to 'hide his agenda in plain view.' Geez marie he's transparent alright--- we see right thru ya, mr. 'bomanation. (Bomb a Nation?)

Oh, what was the question? I'm sorry if I'm off topic!!!

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

I'll say this about Bush... If Obama has blood on his hands then Bush is covered head to toe in the Blood of civilians and military personnel!!!

Bush sent the US and its allies into a long bloody war with two nations based on a lie!!

This may sound harsh but... if US soldiers are dying to ensure the safety of civilians... is that not more honourable than dying for oil???

Unless, of course, you would prefer to return to a strategy of "spray and pray"

How many civilians were being killed every day because of the willingness to use Airpower and Artillery at the first sign of resistance?

You think your "MAD AS HELL" ??? Just wait until you unarmed ten year old daughter gets blown in half by an artillery round fired at your house... see how mad you are then.

In my opinion the tactic of restraint may at first seem more costly... but in the long run it will cut off the psychological food of the Taliban and damage one of their biggest recruitment excuses.

I will agree with you on one thing... Obama should NEVER have told the world his intended date for a military withdrawal... That was an idiotic decision made purely to get votes!! But it will inevitable give the Taliban a boost and I’m sure we will see an increase in Taleban attacks as the date approaches.






[edit on 4-8-2010 by Muckster]

Originally posted by semperfortis
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.

Whilst I agree with you in regards to the politicians making bad decisions based on their own agendas. What about the military? surely if more soldiers refused to fight in an illegal war then the politicians would have to do something about it.

This is the sole reason I have no respect for anyone who picks up a gun in order to use it and trains to kill on a daily basis. The whole notion of war and armies is completely and utterly ludicrous. An army is a machine, it is a tool used to fulfil agendas of the elite.

Its completely bull# to think that soldiers are fighting for their country, its never been about the country ever! They are fighting for the land to run the OIL PIPELINES they are fighting for POPPY FIELDS to take the opium trade away from Russia. they are fighting for MILITARY BASES to be built in order to control the middle east after the fall of IRAN. It has always been about greed and power. Never I repeat NEVER about PEACE or COUNTRY

So when I read a soldiers/veteran post/thread about feeling proud for fighting for their country, you will have to forgive me if I don't clap and applaud.

[edit on 4-8-2010 by franspeakfree]

What about the children!

Oh wait, wrong argument?!

No not really.

Oh wait, what about the women!?

That argument has been used lately.

Oh wait, what about stability!?

Oh wait, what about the possible future strikes!/

Sounds like future tense abortion to me. Might work well for liberals as an excuse.

Oh wait, what about the democracy-The Democracy Conspiracy

Anyway, if "I" was given all supreme power, peace would be enforced, just the definition of justice would be MY decision, oh wait, what was I getting at!?

Previous posters are right.

The problem really begins when a military with an overwhelming power advantage decides (or is told) to throttle back. If the advantage is fully employed, the conflict is over quickly and casualties (military and civilian) rapidly decline and then stop.

When a war plan includes occupation, in order to be successful...sorry to say...then all resistance and insurgencies must be dealt with severely. This will include "civilian" casualties because insurgencies are most often "of the general population", mix with it and use it.

Whatever the reasons behind the current state of affairs in Afghanistan (political, financial, etc.) the problems will not be solved until the Allies step on the gas again and start to wipe out all forms and sources of attack on Alled troops...while continuing to train and otherwise prepare Afghan troops and police to take over security.

Personally, I think this war (from a strictly military point of view) should have been fought about 95% from the air, with a sprinkling of special forces on the ground to achieve objectives. Since we know from recent history that the Afghan population does not abide foreigners - especially those trying to occupy it - we should not have committed to mass long-term troop committments and "re-building" of the Country.

We should have spanked them hard for 9/11 (sorry, I think that Bin Laden...and by extension the Taliban were responsible), utterly destroying all Al Qaeda and Taliban military capabilities over a few weeks. The we should have just gone away (but still close enough to immediately strike again if necessary).

If they tried to pull another stunt like 9/11, we would pound them even harder...maybe also directly targeting all of their leadership...until they got the idea that they ought to just stay out of the U.S's hair.

But to go in and try to "win their hearts and minds" is just foolhardy IMO. This includes the idea that if we employ rules of engagement that attempt to avoid civilian casualties during the occupation - while putting out own people at risk - it will actually change their minds about us being in their country.

In war, you either attempt to completely dominate and obliterate your enemies...even if it means a lot of civilian casualties...or you just punish and withdraw.

To stand in place, with your hands tied behind your back is utter madness.

reply to post by semperfortis


So this president has blood on his hands because another soldier died in a war, and yet you semperfortis, as a recall, were one of the members that has continued to insist the Iraq war was a justified war? Thats highly hypocritical!

Whats also interesting in this thread is that you people seem to have the idea that the president is the one calling the shots for every combat situation. But then again its anything to throw at the 'man' in office right?

Originally posted by franspeakfree
surely if more soldiers refused to fight in an illegal war then the politicians would have to do something about it.

Why don't you talk to Semper about the Iraq war and as to whether it was justified or not. Go ahead, ask him

I mean I just find it astounding, I mean I completely amazing at the OP's blatant hypocrisy, and yet he thinks enough people will ignore him on his past comments. He insists the Iraq war is justified, has continued to support it on this forum, and then posts and OP saying this president has blood on his hands because a soldier died in Afghanistan. This coming from a supporter of the Iraq war.

reply to post by GAOTU789


On the subject of leading figures sending their own kids to war, this always reminds me of our own commander of the dutch armed forces, General Peter van Uhm.

The day after his promotion his own son died when an IED exploded near his car.

General Peter Van Uhm, newly appointed Dutch Commander Armed Forces, did not keep his son out of harm's way. Last Thursday, April 18, 1st Lieutenant Dennis Van Uhm (23) and Private 1st Class Mark Schouwink (22) lost their lives in Afghanistan when an IED exploded near their open-topped Mercedes scout car. Two other troopers on board, Cpl. Roger Hack (25) and Pvt. Toninho Norden (20) were gravely wounded, the latter critical.

In a tragic twist of fate, just the day before, Dennis Van Uhm's father, Peter Van Uhm (52), formerly a Lieutenant General commanding the Dutch land forces, had assumed overall command of the Dutch Armed Forces, succeeding Gen. Dick Berlijn, and been promoted four-star general. The Van Uhms are a military family. A brother of the general, Marc Van Uhm, is a brigadier general commanding 11th Air Mobile Brigade. And young Petrus, born in 1955, decided to join the Armed Forces after becoming captivated with the feats of arms of the 82nd "All American" US Airborne division which liberated his birthplace of Nijmegen. Probably the operation which made the greatest impression on him was the crossing of the Waal river to capture a critical bridge by 3rd Battalion, 504th Regiment of the 82nd Division in 26 small unprotected rowboats, under heavy fire from the crack 10th SS Panzer Division Frundsberg - one of the most heroic operations of the war. If so, I can't help but having a feeling of history coming full circle... The sacrifice of US soldiers and Dutch resistance fighters (remember Jan Van Hoof!) against a common enemy, setting a young Dutchman on a path which would lead to his son... fighting alongside US soldiers against a common enemy some sixty-four years later.

Downeastblog

It always amazed me how someone can continue to operate and function after such a tragedy but I guess that a certain mindset is required to carry out your mission in war...

On a side note, what is it with these families and their war-traditions?? Generation after generation of a certain family will have members that went to war. Almost expecting the next generation to be in a good war of their own so they can continue the tradition........I think that's scary!!

Peace

reply to post by mobiusmale


The tactic you mention work great against a massive organised war machine... Cold war mentality... But this is guerrilla warfare... half the time you cannot tell the solders from the farmers.

Has no one learned the lessons of Vietnam and Russia’s experiences in Afghanistan???

You think America has enemy’s now?? just wait until they start employing your tactics!!!

You cannot, on one hand, say... "These evil terrorist attack the innocent, bomb women and children, kill innocent people in their offices, all to achieve their objectives"

And then on the other say...

"We must defeat this evil by use of overwhelming indiscriminate fire power... If innocents are killed in the process then so be it... we MUST achieve our objectives"

It’s simply hypocritical and turns you into the thing that you are warring against!!!

Semperfortis, I shouldn't even have to tell you this (since you appear to be a former member of the service), but Obama doesn't personally oversee the "rules of engagement" in Afghanistan. Currently, General Petraeus has oversight of the terms of engagement in that conflict. Before him it was McChrystal (who was chiefly responsible for the current restrictive RoE).

Basically, you're angry at the wrong person.

Originally posted by Muckster
reply to post by mobiusmale

The tactic you mention work great against a massive organised war machine... Cold war mentality... But this is guerrilla warfare... half the time you cannot tell the solders from the farmers.

Has no one learned the lessons of Vietnam and Russia’s experiences in Afghanistan???

This is my point precisely. In Vietnam the Unites States, and in Afghanistan the Soviet Union, did not use overwhelming power to first end the conflict and then to keep guerrilla forces at bay.

Anything short of war using all necessary force, once war is declared, is poor policy and doomed to failure. In the first Iraq war, General Schwarzkopf refused to sign off on a battle plan that was anything less than one that guaranteed the complete annihilation of all forces he would come up against.

That war was short and completely successful. I would say we haven't learned the lessons of that war too.

You think America has enemy’s now?? just wait until they start employing your tactics!!!

Maybe so...maybe not. We used these tactics during WWII against Germany, Italy, Japan, etc. After we got rid of the crazies who were responsible for the outbreak of these hostilities, and re-educated the populations of those Countries...we all get along just fine now. They are now our Allies.

You cannot, on one hand, say... "These evil terrorist attack the innocent, bomb women and children, kill innocent people in their offices, all to achieve their objectives"

And then on the other say...

"We must defeat this evil by use of overwhelming indiscriminate fire power... If innocents are killed in the process then so be it... we MUST achieve our objectives"

It’s simply hypocritical and turns you into the thing that you are warring against!!!

I can see why you might think this way. However, my point is that once hostilities begin it is better to finish the fight just as quickly as possible.

Otherwise, the advantage is given to weaker side...and "quagmire" and defeat of the stronger force is inevitable. War sucks...absolutely...but if you are in one, want to survive one, want to win one...then you can't treat it like it is a tea party.

Not only will he have the blood of our soldiers on his hands, look at the gulf and what was allowed to happen there. There is a new video up and it is very well done, here's the links.

Someone needs to start a post on this video, three parts and very well done! Just got an email from a friend with the link and I just watched part 1. Going back to it to watch part 2 and 3. Parts are not to long.

Project Deep Horizon Cut-Throat Part 1
www.youtube.com...

Project Deep Horizon Cut-Throat Part 2
www.youtube.com...

Project Deep Horizon Cut-Throat Part 3
www.youtube.com...

Actually, the blood is on ALL American's hands. Like it or not.

We allowed ourselves to be tricked into this or we didn't scream loud enough when we were opposed.

We let some greedy crooks scare us and get us to lose our logic and common sense.

And idiots like these are still trying to do it:



We fail.

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

reply to post by Blackmarketeer


Who appoints the Generals? The President is responsible for appointing commadigng generals, if he does not have the ability to hire the right people for the job, the buck still falls on the presidents feet.

Impeach Obama-Save America from Socialism

reply to post by mobiusmale


I understand what you are saying, and you argue your point well. However, I still disagree...

Germany Italy and Japan where a completely different situation... They had massive Army’s, Navy’s and Air Force... This affected the psychology of the populations in the early stages of war. Their populations where confident of victory and fed propaganda night and day about victories in Poland, France, SE Asia etc...

However, by 1943 the tide had started to turn... German city’s were being bombed on a regular basis, Germany had lost the battle for North Africa, Japan was being slowly pushed back in the pacific.

Can you imagine the psychological impact to the populations by 1945??

5 years earlier they believed they were going to win the war... Now their Army’s were defeated, their once great cities lay in ruins and occupation was a certainty... They were defeated on a psychological level and so offered little resistance... in fact, many embraced the victors!

The Middle East is a completely different ball game...

First they have the history of the crusades (which is still taught and remembered in the Middle East) to fall back on.

Second the Taliban have approached the war in Afghanistan in a completely different way... There is no mass army of tanks, heavy artillery and war planes. The population has no Army to lose.

Instead the war has been touted as a struggle against a great evil... America is the powerful Satan with the Taleban as a small rebel force... They have told the people that the struggle will be long, hard and costly.

They have been told that they have God on their side and that any fighter in the struggle will go straight to heaven upon their death.

They are not looking for sweeping military victories, so much as small hit and runs... booby traps... Ambush... cunning and stealth. While the Allies hide their bombs amongst the clouds the Taleban hide theirs by the roads.

The Taliban’s strategy is completely different to that of Germany, Japan and Italy... There was no dramatic loss of forces followed by a retreat into the mountains... the mountains were already their homes and they are used to living in conditions that the average Allied solder would find intolerable for long periods.

They blend in with the population, making the only real chance of overwhelming military victory total annihilation of the population.


It is a completely different mindset that has come about due to the will to fight an overwhelming force!!


The only way to win this kind of war is by hearts and minds or complete extermination.

Personally I don’t think we should even be there... the Wars in Afghanistan and Iraq was based on lies and half truths... However, we are there and so we have a responsibility to conduct ourselves appropriately... If we show the population that we can offer something better than the backwards and oppressive ways of the Taliban then we may just win them over.

Bomb their women and Children and we simply play into the hands of the Taliban.

Peace

How many more videos does Wikileaks have to publish before we begin to wake up? Are the lives of American soldiers (lets face it, the invaders) really worth more then innocent civilans, really? Does anyone honestly think we can "win" this conflict? Does anyone think that the Taliban won't come flooding out of the mountains the very moment we leave and reclaim power? We need to withdraw with as much dignity as we can muster. The foundation of our presence there is based on lies and it taints everything we do there.

reply to post by Southern Guardian


Thats not hypocritical at all. It seems to me that he is for the war but against the way our unqualified, unexperienced, loser of a president is managing the war.

We did hire a socialist whining loser to be our president. The man is simply in way over his head.

I for one do not agree with the war, but what good does that do. Either fight it with full force or pull out. These half commited way to fighting a war will lead to more deaths on both sides in the long run, and will hurt Americas reputation more than if we simply went in and one the way we used to "By any means neccessary" (That does not include war crimes)

Originally posted by franspeakfree

Originally posted by semperfortis
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.

Whilst I agree with you in regards to the politicians making bad decisions based on their own agendas. What about the military? surely if more soldiers refused to fight in an illegal war then the politicians would have to do something about it.

This is the sole reason I have no respect for anyone who picks up a gun in order to use it and trains to kill on a daily basis. The whole notion of war and armies is completely and utterly ludicrous. An army is a machine, it is a tool used to fulfil agendas of the elite.

Its completely bull# to think that soldiers are fighting for their country, its never been about the country ever! They are fighting for the land to run the OIL PIPELINES they are fighting for POPPY FIELDS to take the opium trade away from Russia. they are fighting for MILITARY BASES to be built in order to control the middle east after the fall of IRAN. It has always been about greed and power. Never I repeat NEVER about PEACE or COUNTRY

So when I read a soldiers/veteran post/thread about feeling proud for fighting for their country, you will have to forgive me if I don't clap and applaud.

[edit on 4-8-2010 by franspeakfree]

You sir just made me throw up in my mouth a little, and should simply leave the country if you are not going to at least support the people who DO PUT THEIR LIVES ON THE LINE EVERY DAY. What have you done for the country? Who are you to codemn 18 year old kids that made a commitment not know what they were getting into.

People like you are the people that are ruining our nation.

SUPPORT THE TROOPS, AND THEIR FAMILIES WHETHER OR NOT YOU AGREE WITH THE WAR!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


Thank God for the troops, Damn the Fed


[edit on 4-8-2010 by russ212]