And now he supports child soldiers. How much lower can he sink?

[northernlights]

This is simply appalling. Our tax dollars are being used to pay for this. :wtf:

"In a brief and little-noticed announcement on Monday, the White House said Barack Obama, the president, had decided to exempt Chad, the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), Sudan and Yemen from the Child Soldiers Prevention Act of 2008, which prohibits funding for foreign governments' militaries if they recruit or use child soldiers."

http://english.aljazeera.net/news/americas/2010/10/2010102992129404673.html

[panader0]

1. "now he supports child soldiers"?

You're projecting a bit don't ya think? The RNC agrees with you though.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

2. "Supports" is unfair, but "provides funds to groups that employ" is still pretty damn bad. N.T.

[fascisthunter]

4. he's providing the funding though, no?

Jesus...

[northernlights]

7. do you understand the term projection?

Projection is when you accuse someone else of doing what you, yourself, are doing. I am not, nor do I, support making soldiers of children. I am not projecting my beliefs or actions onto Obama.

"...tribal militias mobilised by the government to fight Shia Houthi rebels in the north have recruited 14-year-olds, the White House memo says."

"In Sudan, where citizens will vote on possible secession between north and south in 2011, the US government funds military education for the Sudan People's Liberation Army (SPLA) - the southern Sudanese armed forces - and prohibiting funding would "preclude the ability to deliver critical training necessary to professionalize the SPLA".

As of December, the memo says, the SPLA included around 1,200 children - both boys and girls aged between 12 and 17 years old."



Note who's memo that is. I am not the white house, nor am I in or anywhere near the white house. This is the from the White House, not from me.


And yes, the RNC has called this indefensible. I agree. This is not a game to me. I do not side with "my team, right or wrong. This is one off those rare occasions when I agree with the RNC. So shoot me :shrug:

[panader0]

11. "how much lower can he sink?"

So you had a very bad opinion of Obama before this I guess. The issue is more complicated than just giving money to countries so they can employ child soldiers. It's a weighed decision to aid those countries in spite of their use of child soldiers. Our country waits until you are 18.

[northernlights]

12. it's a weighted decision to aid those country's *militaries*

we're not talking humanitarian aid here. We are now funding child soldiers. That is pretty fucking low, in my book.

I was thrilled with Obama's election. My opinion of him has steadily sunk based on his key appointments and his policies. I don't think it can get much lower than it is at this point. But then, every time I reach that conclusion, he finds a new way to show me I'm wrong.

[Bluebear]

37. Some people will justify anything.

[Bluenorthwest]

16. Obama sez he's a Christian so I have to have no equality

Yet the Christ o' Christianity sez 'harm a hair on a child and you are more than doomed' and also that what we do to the least of us is done to the Christ himself. Hard to swallow this routine that he is a follower of a faith that he breaks in the most foundational ways on a constant basis. Hypocrisy is what it is, huge, giant, aggressive hypocrisy.

[treestar]

42. LIke the RNC REALLY thinks this is bad

This was the same in the Bush Administration -- where were you then?

the Republicans are just using this.

[Scruffy1]

56. Me too-this is about the last straw

[Angry Dragon]

3. I agree with you

[DFab420]

5. Yes and if you keep reading the article

"'Working to eliminate child soldiers"

For each exempted country, the White House memo states that the US government "is working ... to reduce and eliminate" the use of child soldiers. The document makes the argument that cutting off funding to the affected governments' militaries will make it harder to ultimately turn them away from recruiting youths.

In the case of Chad, the memo says that applying the 2008 law "would hinder the United States government's effort to reinforce positive trends," such as an effort to work with the United Nations to demobilise children in the army.

The memo also cites Chad's counterterrorism role. It says Chad "plays a critical role" hosting some 280,000 Sudanese refugees and is a US "partner" in the Trans-Sahara Counter Terrorism Partnership and "strongly supports" counterterrorism objectives."

So yes, while it is a disdainful thing to have to work with armies that use children soldiers, ignoring them and not helping them will do nothing to alleviate their use of children as foot soldiers.

It's rough that it's not so black and white, all these gray areas are hard to navigate, :sarcasm: therefore:
Obama = bad for helping get rid of children soldiers by working with armies that use them...

on edit:
added sarcasm to help clear up point..

[iamtechus]

13. "all these gray areas are hard to navigate"

No, not at all! Just hire yourself some psycopaths like John Yoo and Jay Bybee. Let them stamp their imprimatur on the policy and viola!, your conscience is clear.

Supporting such policies requires a fine sense of situational ethics.

[DFab420]

15. Are you equating

Working with armies to try and end their use of child soldiers to the shrub administration's legal torture lawyers?

No money = no influence = children being forced into the army

Money = influence = lack of children in army.

That's how the Obama Administration sees it. Situational ethics aren't involved in this one, just getting their hands dirty to try and fix a problem...

[iamtechus]

21. Don't you think it's about time for Obama to man-up and return the Nobel?

[provis99]

26. why would Chad stop recruiting child soldiers now that Obama has given them money?

your reasoning isn't very clear. Wouldn't Chad instead say, "We can recruit child soldiers now, because Obama will give us money no matter what we do!"

[treestar]

43. Why would they quit because they get no aid?

They won't quit doing it just because the US withdraws aid.

[texastoast]

34. But wait! Barack fixes everthing instantly, don't you know?

He has a magic wand.

We got the spinners on DU tonight. And I'm being nice.

[bettyellen]

6. you mean by working with the UN to stop them from using kids. don't you?

[northernlights]

8. no, I mean by funding the training of an army that recuits 12 year olds nt

[bettyellen]

17. okay hey lets invade them instead of making things better, right? BS GOP MEME

you got punkedby this oversimplistic nonsense. either youre very naive and well intentioned, or a fox viewer.

[northernlights]

41. wrong. the BS GOP MEME is "the terrists in gonna get us"

US deaths to "terrists" = + or - 5,000. ~3,000 to 911. A few hundred in military bases before 911. ~1,500 to Oklahoma City. And then a few more here and there: eg Dr. Tiller, the Atlanta Olympics bomber, and so on.

US deaths to illegal war in Iraq for 911? I've lost count.
US deaths to revenge war in Afghanistan for 911? I've lost count.

US deaths to cancer?
US deaths to heart disease?
US deaths to poverty?
US deaths to lousy drivers?
US deaths to drunk drivers?

Our focus on terrism -- starting with W, but continuing with Obama, including supporting and training militaries that "recruit" 12 year olds -- far outweighs the potential danger. It so far-outweighs it it's pathetic.

Yes, Obama inherited a steaming pile of shit. But the simple fact is that the focus on terrorism -- including by Obama -- whether it's supporting and training militaries that recruit 12-year-olds or increasing the spying on americans or deciding it's ok to assassinate american citizens based on suspician -- far, far, far outweighs the danger that terrism truly represents in our daily lives.

Continuing and expanding on W policies is the wrong way to go. The time to have shoved al Qaeda into a spider hole was early in 2002. That time is long past. Obama is making things worse, not better.


World's deaths to US. terrism? Care to count? I don't even know where to begin.

[Hekate]

51. He's focusing on many issues at once, as you know. This is just the outrage du jour.

The GOP has many many memes in its data banks. They trot them out in succession, not all at once, and grind away endlessly on whatever catches the MSM's fancy until they are ready to move on to the next one. Obamacare! Death panels! If Dems aren't careful, they end up playing defense all the time, just so you're aware of that.

Obama has "focused" on many issues at once, just not all of the ones we think are critical in each moment.

Terrorism is real, terrorists are earnest, and President Obama operates nothing like Baby Caligula and his enablers. He generally keeps everything low-key, leading the opposition (and DUers) to trumpet that he is doing little or nothing. When it becomes apparent that he is keeping up, the opposition (and DUers) demand to know why he didn't tell us.

The guy can't win.

Hekate

[northernlights]

57. to me, this is just another in a series of outrages, starting with bogus HCR that he negotiated away

before ever coming to the table. Not to mention the expansion and codification of spying on Americans, the Patriot Act, the "unitary executive" bullshit. Not to mention the disaster called economic reform, the bank bailouts, the stimulus bargained away before coming to the table. Not to mention...well the list of total sellouts goes on.


But it is true he hasn't followed *all* of W's policies. For example, when the banks were committing mortgage fraud, back around '03 or so when the FBI warned that administration and the states tried to stop it, W's administration told the states it was federal jurisdiction and stopped the states from protecting their citizens from the banksters.

Now that the fraud is apparent, this administration has decided bank fraud really *does* belong to the states after all. Now that the damage is done and it's too late literally for millions of people thrown into the streets.

[NutmegYankee]

9. FAIL

Read the rest of the article.

[SidDithers]

10. Unrec...nt

Sid

[UTUSN]

30. 'nother UnRec from me. Sometimes I'm not so opposed to the UnReKKK function. n/t

[Number23]

40. Second.

[Hekate]

54. Third

oy god

[opihimoimoi]

14. Fail...nitpicking to denigrate falsely....GOPer meme

[austin78704]

18. Could you explain your position in more detail?

[iamtechus]

23. Obama is enabling war criminals

That's what one might call a Nuremberg meme.

[opihimoimoi]

27. Desperate much?

[ima_sinnic]

31. "desperate" for what?

seems pretty clear-cut to me, and it's certainly not unfamiliar territory, considering the kid-glove treatment GWB and cronies have gotten.
seems the ones defending the indefensible are the ones who might start feeling desperate.

[blondeatlast]

19. With all due respect, read the whole article. I don't think it says what you

are telling us it says.

It's not a balck/white situation we are dealing with in this case.

[Ikonoklast]

20. Read the entire article.

Unrec for deliberately being misleading.


Your hate makes you fail.

[stray cat]

22. How many ways can this be unrecommennded?

[stray cat]

24. Now this kind of stuff from people is why Stewart has a rally for sanity and common sense

[Enrique]

45. to distract us from human rights in Africa?

no, I don't think that's what the rally is for.

[iamtechus]

25. There must be a lot of oil in Chad, DRC etc. /nt

[dionysus]

28. he hates christmas, too. and puppies.

:eyes:

[Obamanaut]

29. I think it would be nice if, rather than support so many of the other

governments throughout the world, our tax dollars be spent on people/projects here in the US - at least until all the broken stuff is fixed.

Close all those military bases, stop the wars, bring the troops home, stop being 'policemen to the world.'

[Gravel Democrat]

55. Amazingly, we have entered a dimension where that suggestion is called isolationism

The Rubicon is in the mirror, and the whirlwind awaits

But those old enough to understand will never complain as much as those who haven't been born yet.

Because they'll be dead.

[VMI Dem]

32. Quit complaining. He campaigned on it.

:shrug:

[texastoast]

35. Campaigned on what?

I just couldn't keep up with all the facts. Do you perhaps have some links for me?

[Enrique]

44. sarcasm?

????

[Iggo]

33. You mean you and I support child soldiers.

Now what are you going to do about it?

[texastoast]

36. No worky

Nice try.

[Bluebear]

38. That sounds ignorant.

Are you trying to riff on a Chinese laundry or what?

[texastoast]

53. Nope.

I've never heard anyone say that in a Chinese laundry.

FAIL.

[NYC Liberal]

39. He doesn't "support child soldiers"

What a bullshit headline. Unless by "supports child soldiers" you mean "'is working ... to reduce and eliminate' the use of child soldiers."

Oh, and the RNC is already on top of this new "Obama supports child soldiers" meme: http://www.gop.com/index.php/briefing/comments/indefensible - that should tell you all you need to know.

[Name removed]

46. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Hekate]

47. Fail.

Don't read whole article. Don't look for better sources. Spread latest RNC meme.

Make sure it's Obama's personal fault that child soldiers have been used in Africa for decades (wait until they find out about SE Asia).

Fail to recognize that this is similar to Bush's refusal to talk to our enemies: you can't change people you refuse to talk to.

Hekate

[ipaint]

48. Funny how things change, isn't it?

One more war crime we can now be "reasonable" about.

[superduperfarleft]

49. I actually disagree with both the OP and the Obama-can-do-no-wrong crowd.

And I got my information from HRW, not the GOP.

Yes, Sudan, Chad, etc. use child soldiers. But what about the other countries with horrible human rights records that we throw billions of dollars a year at (Saudi Arabia, Israel, Pakistan, etc.)? Are child soldiers somehow worse than hanging gay people or stoning rape victims to death?

Of course Obama didn't invent throwing money at the enemy of our enemy. Still, it's bad policy regardless of who does it, because the very people we're funding now may become a minor issue decades later (see Osama Bin Laden).

[leeroysphitz]

50. The president is not FOR child soldiers! He just isn't AGAINST them.

It's a nuanced stance...

[Hekate]

52. Child soldiers have been with us since the dawn of time.The Geneva Conventions scarcely mentioned...

... them in 1949.

Child soldiers have been a problem since forever, except ancient Sparta didn't consider it a "problem" nor did the Ottoman Turks. It wasn't until the early 20th century that it even became a concern, and the Geneva Conventions scarcely mentioned the issue in 1949.

We have made progress. We are making progress. We will not be able to continue to make progress unless there is some kind of leverage to use against the practice, like helping to professionalize and train an adult army, which I think is what the Obama admin is trying to do here.

Read some history:

http://www.suite101.com/content/the-history-of-child-soldiers-a59619
and
http://www.suite101.com/content/child-soldiers-a58940


Hekate