Anonymous Moose Wrote:Obama is commander and cheif of the Armed Forces. He is responsible for all actions taken by our military.
If he can't handle the responsibilities of being a leader (which include making you responsible of the actions of your subordinates), then he doesnt deserve the position.

And for those still stuck in the Right-Left Paradigm, this is just another reason to show that right hand and left hand are of the same body, and the New Boss (Obama) is the same as the Old Boss (Bush).

I should make one final note and say that claiming Obama is not responsible would mean that Bush isnt responsible for the torture that occured under his watch.

MasPan Wrote:[color="#cc8899"]He is responsible for their actions yes - military personnel are, in a sense, representatives of the United States, and their entire chain of command, all the way up to Obama, is responsible for their actions. A soldier killing a foreign civilian could reasonably be grounds for war, depending on circumstances, regardless of whether the soldier is acting of their own accord or under orders.

However, these soldiers were rogue, acting of their own accord in blatant disregard for orders or morals. While Obama is responsible for their actions, he is not at fault, nor to blame for them. However, the burden of dealing with their repercussions does fall on him.

While he is responsible, he is not to blame.[/COLOR]

Anonymous Moose Wrote:What's the problem with calling a man out on his own lies?
He promised to end torture. He has the power as the commander and cheif of the armed forces. But what have we seen? We have seen that torture is still allowed under his administration.

@above, the constitution has is allowed to be amended to change with the times. However, instead of amending it, the government ignores it.

MasPan Wrote:While he is responsible, he is not to blame.

Anonymous Moose Wrote:I never used the word "fault" and never said it was Obama's fault. I only said he was responsible, which you agree with.

Got to love the stawman people created here.

Anonymous Moose Wrote:If he cant control his subordinates, then he has no right to lead.

Rick Wrote:Moose you need to be banned from using the word strawman. It's your signature cop-out these days.

Protocol additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the protection of victims of international armed conflicts (Protocol I) (with annexes, Final Act of the Diplomatic Conference on the reaffirmation and development of international humanitarian law applicable in armed conflicts dated 10 June 1977 and resolutions adopted at the fourth session). Adopted at Geneva on 8 June 1977 Wrote:Article 87.
DUTY OF COMMANDERS.
1. The High Contracting Parties and the Parties to the conflict shall require military commanders, with respect to members of the armed forces under their command and other persons under their control, to prevent and, where necessary, to suppress and to report to competent authorities breaches of the Conventions and of this Protocol.
2. In order to prevent and suppress breaches, High Contracting Parties and
Parties to the conflict shall require that, commensurate with their level of responsi
bility, commanders ensure that members of the armed forces under their command
are aware of their obligations under the Conventions and this Protocol.
3. The High Contracting Parties and Parties to the conflict shall require any
commander who is aware that subordinates or other persons under his control are
going to commit or have committed a breach of the Conventions or of this Protocol,
to initiate such steps as are necessary to prevent such violations of the Conventions or
this Protocol, and, where appropriate, to initiate disciplinary or penal action against
violators thereof.

Anonymous Moose Wrote:Its not a cop out. I never claimed Obama is at fault and its not my fault people are arguing with a strawman that said "Obama is at fault"

Quote:Article 87
The High Contracting Parties and Parties to the conflict shall require any
commander who is aware that subordinates or other persons under his control are
going to commit or have committed a breach of the Conventions or of this Protocol,
to initiate such steps as are necessary to prevent such violations of the Conventions or
this Protocol, and, where appropriate, to initiate disciplinary or penal action against
violators thereof.

Anonymous Moose Wrote:Its not a cop out. I never claimed Obama is at fault and its not my fault people are arguing with a strawman that said "Obama is at fault"

Rick Wrote:Responding to an accusation by saying the accusation is wrong is not an argument. Your general background context in regards to Obama as well as your language more than imply who you think is at fault.



Aware being the key word here. I believe the disciplinary action is being fulfilled.

Rick Wrote:imply who you think is at fault.

Aware being the key word here. I believe the disciplinary action is being fulfilled.

Anonymous Moose Wrote:Explain. If you mean this statement: "If he cant control his subordinates, then he has no right to lead."
It doesnt imply he is at fault. It could be a number of various things including believing that he is incompetent and doesnt deserve to lead.

and link?

AnonymousBasiler Wrote:Obama is commander and cheif of the Armed Forces. He is responsible for all actions taken by our military.
If he can't handle the responsibilities of being a leader (which include making you responsible of the actions of your subordinates), then he doesnt deserve the position.

Rick Wrote:Subsection 1 and 3 say the same thing, except subsection 3 adds an extra requirement. Awareness. How odd.

Sarah Wrote:The news forum has been intolerable since Anonymous Moose and (to a lesser extent) Kanevaldier joined. Anonymous has a ridiculous raging hate on for Obama and calls everything he does unconstitutional and blames him for all of the worlds issue (GOD IT'S RAINING TODAY pineapple YOU OBAMA) and Kanevaledier is just an extreme republican which is meh, even if I don't agree with what he says most of the time it seems like he understands what he's saying, though to some extent he also blames Obama for issues too much.

This is pretty disgusting, though. The armed forces need more supervision or something, though it's not surprising that when you enlist a bunch of kids fresh out of high school they act like the worst pineappletards on the planet.

Anonymous Moose Wrote:Explain. If you mean this statement: "If he cant control his subordinates, then he has no right to lead."
It doesnt imply he is at fault. It could be a number of various things including believing that he is incompetent and doesnt deserve to lead.

and link?

Anonymous Moose Wrote:Explain. If you mean this statement: "If he cant control his subordinates, then he has no right to lead."
It doesnt imply he is at fault. It could be a number of various things including believing that he is incompetent and doesnt deserve to lead.

and link?

DustBunny Wrote:Are you stupid? You're saying it's the administrations fault that a bunch of kid's went insane? I don't care much for our president, but it's no better than blaming Virginia Tech for the shoot out of that mental kid. Did anyone blame the school? No, they didn't because it's a teachers/administrators responsibility too do all in their power to make sure they are safe.

By your pineappleed up logic, obama told them to do such things, which I assure you, no president, nor politician would probably agree with or condone. Obama is taking the responsibility by giving them the punishment they deserve, he obviously doesn't agree with it, nor advertises it.

pineapple man, you're trying too say you don't blame Obama but it's his responsibility that every soldier acts appropriately. Sorry but that's irrational and frankly improbable. To hold such standards, it's no wonder you have an unrealistic standpoint with anything political.