U.S. soldier kills 16 Afghan civilians

LadyJazzer wrote: Yeah, I'm sure we all remember how Obama put us there... Oh, wait... Nope, it was one of Bush's unnecessary wars.

I was waiting for the "blame Bush" stupidity. And I knew who would supply it. You win. Nope... this is on Obama's watch... it's his military that indiscriminately went on a rampage and killed 16 citizens in cold blood. That's going to be a hard nut to go with into the campaign season. I love it. Couldn't have happened to a worst president.

It's hard not to blame Bush since we wouldn't even be there if it weren't for him. And if he had found Osama bin Laden, maybe we would have been out before he left office but Bush admitted finding Osama wasn't a big priority for him and he didn't worry about it much. So much for avenging the 9/11 victims.

It took a new president to get the job done and I am grateful.

JSG wrote: It's hard not to blame Bush since we wouldn't even be there if it weren't for him. And if he had found Osama bin Laden, maybe we would have been out before he left office but Bush admitted finding Osama wasn't a big priority for him and he didn't worry about it much. So much for avenging the 9/11 victims.

It took a new president to get the job done and I am grateful.

:thumbsup:

JSG wrote: It's hard not to blame Bush since we wouldn't even be there if it weren't for him. And if he had found Osama bin Laden, maybe we would have been out before he left office but Bush admitted finding Osama wasn't a big priority for him and he didn't worry about it much. So much for avenging the 9/11 victims.

It took a new president to get the job done and I am grateful.

Yep... real good job done... 16 innocent civilians dead. You're proud of your president.

Do you know how many tours that soldier did before he wen't berserk?

It wasn't Obama who killed those civilians. It was an American soldier at the breaking point.

Obama has gotten us out of one war already, which is more than Bush did.

It's unconscionable that Bush got us into these wars without a clear exit strategy.

The Liberals GOP Twin wrote:

LadyJazzer wrote: Yeah, I'm sure we all remember how Obama put us there... Oh, wait... Nope, it was one of Bush's unnecessary wars.

I was waiting for the "blame Bush" stupidity. And I knew who would supply it. You win. Nope... this is on Obama's watch... it's his military that indiscriminately went on a rampage and killed 16 citizens in cold blood. That's going to be a hard nut to go with into the campaign season. I love it. Couldn't have happened to a worst president.

Damn, it amazes me that this has turned into a political debate. First it is not Obama's military, last I knew he was commander in chief by virtue of being President that is it, unless something has changed I served in the United States Navy, not the Obama Navy. It also was not the military the indiscriminately went on a rampage that MURDERED 16 citizens in cold blood. It was one individual, that for whatever reason lost it and did this unforgiveable act. This is not about Obama, or Bush or any other politician. They had no control over this individual. They where not present to see if there were signs of trouble in this individual. His chain of command was, and we do not even know if there were signs of problems. The politicians had out the orders, most of which the President (regardless of party) knows about. That is why there are Generals, and senior officers. Then those orders come down the chain. Eventually the Senior NCO'S get the job from the orders and excutes them to the best of their ability. One of the jobs of the SNCO'S is to take care of thier men. Keep an eye on them, help them, mentor them, whatever it takes. This is a rouge soldier that decided on his own that he was judge, jury and excutioner for whatever reason.

JSG wrote: Do you know how many tours that soldier did before he wen't berserk?

It wasn't Obama who killed those civilians. It was an American soldier at the breaking point.

Obama has gotten us out of one war already, which is more than Bush did.

It's unconscionable that Bush got us into these wars without a clear exit strategy.

To say Obama got us out of one war is wrong, he followed the Status of Forces Agreement that called for our total withdrawal that was signed by President Bush. Actually President Obama tried to get an extension done and the biggest fallout of it that made it fail was the status of US Military if they committed a crime Iraq wanted total control over it and the Obama said no (rightfully so also). So we had to pull out.

navycpo7 wrote:

The Liberals GOP Twin wrote:

LadyJazzer wrote: Yeah, I'm sure we all remember how Obama put us there... Oh, wait... Nope, it was one of Bush's unnecessary wars.

I was waiting for the "blame Bush" stupidity. And I knew who would supply it. You win. Nope... this is on Obama's watch... it's his military that indiscriminately went on a rampage and killed 16 citizens in cold blood. That's going to be a hard nut to go with into the campaign season. I love it. Couldn't have happened to a worst president.

Damn, it amazes me that this has turned into a political debate. First it is not Obama's military, last I knew he was commander in chief by virtue of being President that is it, unless something has changed I served in the United States Navy, not the Obama Navy. It also was not the military the indiscriminately went on a rampage that MURDERED 16 citizens in cold blood. It was one individual, that for whatever reason lost it and did this unforgiveable act. This is not about Obama, or Bush or any other politician. They had no control over this individual. They where not present to see if there were signs of trouble in this individual. His chain of command was, and we do not even know if there were signs of problems. The politicians had out the orders, most of which the President (regardless of party) knows about. That is why there are Generals, and senior officers. Then those orders come down the chain. Eventually the Senior NCO'S get the job from the orders and excutes them to the best of their ability. One of the jobs of the SNCO'S is to take care of thier men. Keep an eye on them, help them, mentor them, whatever it takes. This is a rouge soldier that decided on his own that he was judge, jury and excutioner for whatever reason.

I really don't care navycpo7... the socialists made EVERYTHING that happened in the military during Bush's eight year presidency HIS FAULT. Well buckaroo... now it's Obama's turn... it's his problem, it's his administrations screw up and he's going to take the heat for it. Bush had no direct control over Abu Ghraib... but he and his administration were raked over the coals for it. Bush was rightfully slammed for allowing torture, Obama is allowing drone assassination... we don't hear any complaints from the left about that.

No... this is now Obama's war and I hope the GOP makes a big old stink about this at campaign time. I'm looking forward to see Obama nose rubbed into it.

ZHawke wrote: Please, help me get this straight - you appear to me to be describing "degrees of violence" while advocating "unlimited" violence on the premise that tribal societies are "uncivilized" and need to be virtually bombed into oblivion before they "get it" based on your posit that "this is nature's law and it must be followed"? OH...........MY...........GOD!!!!!!! :faint:

More than willing to oblige, for it is obvious that you need help with your reading comprehension.

There are degrees of violence Z - there is simply no getting around that fact. I am not advocating unlimited violence be used on the tribal society, I am saying that unless you are willing to employ unlimited violence in prosecuting a war there will not be a resolution to the reasons for which you employed the violence to begin with. What effect does sending in a few cruise missiles or a single bombing run have? What effect has our use of limited violence had in altering the purposes for which we were attacked to begin with? Did our use of limited violence in Korea have the desired effect? How about our use of limited violence in Viet Nam? Would you say our goal was accomplished, or abandoned, with respect to Iraq now that we have withdrawn? What prognostication do you have regarding Afghanistan after we leave next year according to the announced schedule? Will our goal have been accomplished?

Nature's law is that one must be willing to use unlimited violence if a permanent resolution to the conflict is to be reached. A sow protecting her cubs is only prolonging the danger they face if she is satisfied with running off a creature which seeks to harm them. A bull elk will face the same opponent multiple times during the course of the same rut simply because his nature is to intimidate and not destroy the challenger. It is a common occurrence for a bull elk to not survive the winter because he has so weakened himself in intimidating others that he can't recover his strength and survive. Does this sound familiar to you when applied to nations and wars? Of course it does - it is nature's law.

I am not saying that we should use unlimited violence against every tribal culture. I am saying that if we decide to use any violence against it at all we should use the unlimited kind instead of the limited kind. Trying to use limited violence will only prolong the conflict and result in no resolution to it. This is what nature's law tells us. If we are only prepared to use a limited amount of violence we should not expect that the conflict will be resolved. We should instead expect the conflict to continue for a long period of time with a lot of little hurts inflicted on both sides along the way. That is what happens when limited violence is used. When the alpha wolf seeks to destroy his challenger, he may himself be severely wounded in the conflict, but there will be no further conflict with that challenger - it will have been conclusively decided one way or the other when the battle between them ends. One will walk away and one will not and there will be no further battles between them left to fight. If the alpha male wolf is satisfied with seeing his challenger turn tail and run, there will be another battle fought between them.

The wolf knows this instinctively, but it is something that the human race, for all its perceived intelligence, needs to learn over and over and over again. We do not author the laws of nature, we are not the gods of nature. We can choose, as the wolf chooses, to destroy or to be satisfied with seeing our opponent turn tail and flee, but we can't stop the next challenge from the same challenger if we choose the second option - the laws of nature dictate that we will have to face that challenger again at some point very soon, and next time that challenger may not turn tail and run from us. The next time we may be forced to destroy or be destroyed. We are subject to the laws of nature, we do not write them. The founders and framers understood this basic reality - do you?

JSG wrote: Do you know how many tours that soldier did before he wen't berserk?

It wasn't Obama who killed those civilians. It was an American soldier at the breaking point.

Obama has gotten us out of one war already, which is more than Bush did.

It's unconscionable that Bush got us into these wars without a clear exit strategy.

It wasn't Bush who stripped prisoners naked and humiliated them at Abu Graib either - but as Harry Truman once proclaimed, the buck stops with the man behind the Resolute Desk. The war in Afghanistan was, according to Obama, the "war of necessity" and Iraq the "war of choice". The Congress could have, if it wished, prevented either war instead of exercising its power to authorize both of them. Bush asked Congress for permission and Congress, both aisles in both houses, granted that request and has continued to grant that request at minimum every two years. Holding one person accountable in nonsense, but you knew that already. Doesn't stop you from trying to hold Bush alone accountable though, or even the Republican Party.

Welcome to a dose of your own medicine JSG. Since Obama and the Democrats were intent on holding Bush and the Republicans solely responsible before, they now get to face the same music from the same score with a different orchestra and conductor playing the tune. What was true 4 years ago didn't change along with the person sitting behind the desk. Being held to the standard you sought to set 4 years ago seems to be distasteful to you now - why is that?