• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Official: U.S. soldier opened fire on Afghan civilians

Seems like a pretty tricky situation. I wonder if a visit by Hillary with the families of the victims wouldn't help smooth things over.
 
OK, time for the truth :rolleyes:

Massacres and rapes are a necessary reality in any war. Some of them occur for legitimate military reasons (i. e. the civilian in question is suspected of aiding the enemy in some way), and some of them occur simply because there's no one "policing" the war.

It's totally naive to believe that the incident described here is an exception to the rule. In war, these massacres are far more commonplace than the times they're actually exposed to global media coverage. It's reasonable to expect that US troops massacre civilians and rape kids every day, just as the Taliban or other competing Afghan factions do, simply because that's what happens in war, regardless of the parties involved.

The notion that this kind of thing is a rare occurrence is just more propoganda from uncle sam to appease the ignorant (childish) American public.

That being said, if one is unwilling to accept these massacres as a cost of a war, i. e. if one doesn't believe that the importance of the mission of the war outweighs these kinds of brutalities (rapes, massacres, tortures, corpse urinations), then the war should not be started, period.

Since the war in Afghanistan has no meaningful mission at all (except possibly to create a government that will allow American firms to mine and exploit Afghanistan's natural resources and labor), its benefits clearly do not out weight its brutal costs. Therefore, the war should be terminated.

Unfortunately, since the US is not a democracy, the American people have no say in that.


If we had elected McCain instead of Obama, we would still have troops stationed in Iraq as well as Afghanistan, and probably in Iran as well.

The American public just needs to apply more pressure to the president to end the war.

The GOP candidates missed a big opportunity to denounce the President for extending the Afghanistan war this long.
 
If we had elected McCain instead of Obama, we would still have troops stationed in Iraq as well as Afghanistan, and probably in Iran as well.

The American public just needs to apply more pressure to the president to end the war.

The GOP candidates missed a big opportunity to denounce the President for extending the Afghanistan war this long.

I am shocked because I agree with all of that statement.
 
I am shocked because I agree with all of that statement.

There is much that liberals and libertarians have in common in regards to foreign policy.
 
There is much that liberals and libertarians have in common in regards to foreign policy.

Depends on the individual. My own foreign policy views are not quite so hawkish as that of most conservatives, yet I also find Ron Paul's isolationism to be disgusting to me (no other word for it - his extreme stance on foreign policy is disgusting). That being said, when it comes to watching the GOP debates, Paul seems to be the most sane out of all of those on stage.
 
Well, at least he didnt urinate on them
 
He does a fair amount.

Here's a top 10 but there are other top 10 lists out there.

Obama%20apologizes_634656745917678398_main.jpg


Obama’s Legacy of Smarmy Apologies « vermontverse

Well, let's look at those apologies:

1. 1. Apology to France and Europe (“America Has Shown Arrogance”). Speech by President Obama, Rhenus Sports Arena, Strasbourg, France, April 3, 2009.

Actually, that was just a little part of the statement by Obama:

"In recent years we've allowed our Alliance to drift. I know that there have been honest disagreements over policy, but we also know that there's something more that has crept into our relationship. In America, there's a failure to appreciate Europe's leading role in the world. Instead of celebrating your dynamic union and seeking to partner with you to meet common challenges, there have been times where America has shown arrogance and been dismissive, even derisive. But in Europe, there is an anti-Americanism that is at once casual but can also be insidious. Instead of recognizing the good that America so often does in the world, there have been times where Europeans choose to blame America for much of what's bad. On both sides of the Atlantic, these attitudes have become all too common. They are not wise. They do not represent the truth. They threaten to widen the divide across the Atlantic and leave us both more isolated."

So, did he apologize? No, he did not apologize.


2. Apology to the Muslim World (“We Have Not Been Perfect”). President Obama, interview with Al Arabiya, January 27, 2009.

"My job to the Muslim world is to communicate that the Americans are not your enemy, We sometimes make mistakes. We have not been perfect."

I am sorry, you might see that as an apology, in fact, he only said we sometimes make mistakes, we have not been perfect. I did not see, I apologize for the mistakes America has made. That is an apology, what Obama said did not amount to an apology.

3. Apology to the Summit of the Americas (“At Times We Sought to Dictate Our Terms”). President Obama, address to the Summit of the Americas opening ceremony, Hyatt Regency, Port of Spain, Trinidad and Tobago, April 17, 2009.

I read the entire statement, not an apology

4. Apology at the G-20 Summit of World Leaders (“Some Restoration of America’s Standing in the World”). News conference by President Obama, ExCel Center, London, United Kingdom, April 2, 2009.

Well, saying you are going to restore America's standing in the world sounds more like a plan, not an apology.

5. Apology for the War on Terror (“We Went off Course”). President Obama, speech at the National Archives, Washington, D.C., May 21, 2009.

I do not see it saying, sorry we went off course. So, again, not an apology, next try

6. Apology for Guantanamo in France (“Sacrificing Your Values”). Speech by President Obama, Rhenus Sports Arena, Strasbourg, France, April 3, 2009.

Saying you disagree with policies of the past does not amount to apologizing for those policies.

7. Apology before the Turkish Parliament (“Our Own Darker Periods in Our History”). Speech by President Obama to the Turkish Parliament, Ankara, Turkey, April 6, 2009.

The United States is still working through some of our own darker periods in our history. Facing the Washington Monument that I spoke of is a memorial of Abraham Lincoln, the man who freed those who were enslaved even after Washington led our Revolution. Our country still struggles with the legacies of slavery and segregation, the past treatment of Native Americans. Human endeavor is by its nature imperfect. History is often tragic, but unresolved, it can be a heavy weight. Each country must work through its past."

The actual words of Obama, again, not an appointment, next attempt please

8. Apology for U.S. Policy toward the Americas (“The United States Has Not Pursued and Sustained Engagement with Our Neighbors”).

It is the same again and again, saying things are apologies when they are not in fact apologies but statements about how situations between countries, he did not apologize of the fact that the US did not do those things, now did he?

9. Apology for the Mistakes of the CIA (“Potentially We’ve Made Some Mistakes”). Remarks by the President to CIA employees, CIA Headquarters, Langley, Virginia, April 20, 2009. The remarks followed the controversial decision to release Office of Legal Counsel memoranda detailing CIA enhanced interrogation techniques used against terrorist suspects.

I am sorry, but since when does someone "apologize for mistakes by the CIA" in a speech to the CIA. This is what Obama said:

"Don't be discouraged that we have to acknowledge potentially we've made some mistakes. That's how we learn. But the fact that we are willing to acknowledge them and then move forward, that is precisely why I am proud to be President of the United States, and that's why you should be proud to be members of the CIA."

acknowledging mistakes is not apology. And let's face it, above statement doesn't even look like an apology.

10. Apology for Guantanamo in Washington (“A Rallying Cry for Our Enemies”). President Obama, speech at the National Archives, Washington, D.C., May 21, 2009.

"There is also no question that Guantanamo set back the moral authority that is America's strongest currency in the world. Instead of building a durable framework for the struggle against al Qaeda that drew upon our deeply held values and traditions, our government was defending positions that undermined the rule of law. In fact, part of the rationale for establishing Guantanamo in the first place was the misplaced notion that a prison there would be beyond the law--a proposition that the Supreme Court soundly rejected. Meanwhile, instead of serving as a tool to counter terrorism, Guantanamo became a symbol that helped al Qaeda recruit terrorists to its cause. Indeed, the existence of Guantanamo likely created more terrorists around the world than it ever detained.

"So the record is clear: Rather than keeping us safer, the prison at Guantanamo has weakened American national security. It is a rallying cry for our enemies."

Here is that statement. It is at worst an opinion that is not inkeeping with the former Bush administration", an apology however, it is not.


So, my conclusion (and for that matter also of Factcheck) is that all this nonsense about apologies is just :bs :bs :bs

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...mitt-romney/obama-remarks-never-true-apology/

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...omney-repeats-claim-obama-went-around-world-/
 
Last edited:
But was still on active service. Forgive a little scepticism.


Wouldn't it be better to wait and see all the facts of this tragic case before passing judgement?

Like I said in post #223 the soldier might have had brain damage.

Let's not be so quick to be sceptical or not sceptical, shall we?
 
Depends on the individual. My own foreign policy views are not quite so hawkish as that of most conservatives, yet I also find Ron Paul's isolationism to be disgusting to me (no other word for it - his extreme stance on foreign policy is disgusting). That being said, when it comes to watching the GOP debates, Paul seems to be the most sane out of all of those on stage.


I said they had much in common. I didn't say they were in complete sync. I also don't agree with Paul's isolationism, but I do agree that we cannot afford any longer to spend almost as much as the rest of the world combined on the military industrial complex. I also agree with Paul that our Constitution does not give us the authority for the optional preemptive wars where concrete proof of clear and present danger is not provided.
 
I said they had much in common. I didn't say they were in complete sync. I also don't agree with Paul's isolationism, but I do agree that we cannot afford any longer to spend almost as much as the rest of the world combined on the military industrial complex. I also agree with Paul that our Constitution does not give us the authority for the optional preemptive wars where concrete proof of clear and present danger is not provided.


Paul is really NOT an isolationist... I'm not sure why that talking point survives. Each time I hear him speak and as I've researched his position over the last two elections, his views are not isolationist. He's not going to close off the borders, prevent foreigners from traveling to the U.S. and put up an iron curtain. He's very anti-MIC and wants us to follow the Constitution to the letter when conflicts break out. That's not isolationist - if anything it's more Constituionalist.
 
OK, time for the truth :rolleyes:

Massacres and rapes are a necessary reality in any war. Some of them occur for legitimate military reasons (i. e. the civilian in question is suspected of aiding the enemy in some way), and some of them occur simply because there's no one "policing" the war.

It's totally naive to believe that the incident described here is an exception to the rule. In war, these massacres are far more commonplace than the times they're actually exposed to global media coverage. It's reasonable to expect that US troops massacre civilians and rape kids every day, just as the Taliban or other competing Afghan factions do, simply because that's what happens in war, regardless of the parties involved.

The notion that this kind of thing is a rare occurrence is just more propoganda from uncle sam to appease the ignorant (childish) American public.

That being said, if one is unwilling to accept these massacres as a cost of a war, i. e. if one doesn't believe that the importance of the mission of the war outweighs these kinds of brutalities (rapes, massacres, tortures, corpse urinations), then the war should not be started, period.

Since the war in Afghanistan has no meaningful mission at all (except possibly to create a government that will allow American firms to mine and exploit Afghanistan's natural resources and labor), its benefits clearly do not out weight its brutal costs. Therefore, the war should be terminated.

Unfortunately, since the US is not a democracy, the American people have no say in that.

Absolute nonsense, from the first sentence to the last.
 
Wouldn't it be better to wait and see all the facts of this tragic case before passing judgement?

Like I said in post #223 the soldier might have had brain damage.

Let's not be so quick to be sceptical or not sceptical, shall we?

How many ways can the cold blooded murder of 9 children and 3 women be excused? If he had brain damage, does that make it OK and beyond any criticism or - god forbid - apology?
 
So, my conclusion (and for that matter also of Factcheck) is that all this nonsense about apologies is just :bs :bs :bs
So making excuses and justifying them away and it's all BS. I envy your simple reality.
 
So making excuses and justifying them away and it's all BS. I envy your simple reality.

No, I do not have a simple reality, reality is always difficult. However, I live in this reality, people who however keep claiming that Obama is an apology machine are not living in any reality but a dreamworld that only a true conservative could ever see as anything resembling reality.
 
How many ways can the cold blooded murder of 9 children and 3 women be excused? If he had brain damage, does that make it OK and beyond any criticism or - god forbid - apology?


Did I say excused? Show me where I said excused!

All I am saying is wait for all the fact of this tragic situation be known.

Does that sound reasonable?
 
Wouldn't it be better to wait and see all the facts of this tragic case before passing judgement?

Like I said in post #223 the soldier might have had brain damage.

Let's not be so quick to be sceptical or not sceptical, shall we?


By all means we should see the facts here. This is another situation, albeit more tragic, of a US service member acting in a manner that does not speak to what a soldier could and should be. As a nation, we are failing our military by not providing the means to accomplish the mission not are we allowing them to come home without incident.
 
Really? That's disconnected. It gets worse if someone presumes that Afghans do not understand that there are crazy people and we prosecute them. We do not hold them up as idols or glorify them as 'martyrs'. We prosecute them; they are criminals. Losing sight of this simple concept is like losing sight of illegal/improper use is misuse.

There are crazies in every group. The only real question is, does the group support, condone or otherwise advocate such atrocity. In the case of the US, no. In the case of terrorists, yes. He could very well be put to death via military court. I'm not sure how insanity pleas work in the UCMJ, but some member probably knows.

Yes, we're sorry that we cannot catch all the crazies before they go total wackjob. We don't manage to do it in the US either, military nor civilian. We are also committed to seeing justice served. He's not a hero.

We can still apologize, send condolences, prosecute, and perhaps offer blood money. Politics is more nuanced and gray than what many on here are trying to say on here

Sent from my SGH-T989 using Tapatalk
 
I'm waiting for someone to blame this on Obama.

Yeah...as if he's the commander in chief of the miltiary, or something and commanders are responsible for the conduct of their soldiers. Totally rediculous.
 
I'm waiting for someone to blame this on Obama.

The Republi-trash in Washington and conservative media sewage already do.

It's Obama's fault and even proof that he's a Muslim, because he dared to ask for an apology for this massacre and the burning of the Koran books a few days ago.
 
Back
Top Bottom