US Soldiers Pose With Dead Civilian Corpses

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.

He is responsible for punishment, and as Maspan points out in IRC, responsible in general. But responsible =/= fault.

It's not his goddamm fault. I hope you're clear on that.

[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]

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.

.

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.

>Implying Obama is to blame for individual actions of kids with mental fuck-ups, as if he can stop it.

ROFLMFAO.jpg

While he is responsible, he is not to blame.

You said it perfectly.

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

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.

If he cant control his subordinates, then he has no right to lead.

Thanks for basically implying that. You could've made it more clear you know.

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

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"

[color="#cc8899"]Article 87
http://treaties.un.org/doc/Publication/U...nglish.pdf

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.

[/COLOR]

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"

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.

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.

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

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"

Why hello there, Guantanamo! I believe that was a DIRECT ORDER FROM BUSH.

Please shut up. Or at least think your stuff first. You can't control all your men, but you can control your own ORDERS.

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.

Exactly. However, the first section of article 87 plainly states that it is the responsibility of a commander to PREVENT such things occurring. In this instance, Obama failed to do so. He is responsible for it occurring, but not to blame.

imply who you think is at fault.

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

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?

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

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?

I'm sorry, A_M. In case you missed the clear Article 87 in my post, and the clear link to article 87 in the post directly above it:

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>http://treaties.un.org/doc/Publication/U...nglish.pdf <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

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.

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 fucked 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.

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

It's more specific to make it easier to define an argument in that specific situation, I imagine.

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.

Intolerable is a relative term since most news stories today fall into that catagory. I know that it seems that Anonymous is rage hating on Obama but that is not really the issue. The issue is the fact the Obama is by far one of the worst presidents in U.S. history. That is due to his policies and actions, but that is for another discussion.

As for me, I am not a republican, I am a constitutionalist. Believe me when I say that I do not agree with republicans any more than I do democrats. Both parties makes asses out of themselves. You are right that I do understand what I am saying. I have spent a considerable amount of my adult life studying history, government (both domestic and foreign affairs) and also military (something I was once part of). I have a greater understanding than most when it comes to that stuff. Also, I dont like what I see comming on the horizon.

Having been in the military I can say this, when it comes to a soldiers actions, the responsibility falls up the chain of command. That chain has the president right at the top. That is what makes it his fault as he is the one who ultimately has to deal with it.

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?

The link's in MasPan's post. Rick merely cropped that part into his post.

And the connotation of your first post pretty much implies you think Obama's at fault here. Instead of leaving it to interpretation, how about providing a little clarification so we don't have to waste more time than usual arguing with you?

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?

So you think Obama is incompetent because he can't control his subordinates (a grand total of less than 10).

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.

Bolded statements are strawmen.

Anyway, I want a link or proof that these soldiers are being charged.
Although I never said "Obama ordered torture." Bush on the record claimed he himself did - meaning Bush is at fault in his own case.
And expecting someone to do their job is not unreasonable. If he cant handle it, then get someone that can in office.

[color="#cc8899"]It feels like we're all stuck in a room...with a moose.
[video=youtube;D1bWKobzU-0]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D1bWKobzU-0&feature=related[/video][/COLOR]