• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

LAST US POW RETURNED from the Taliban

PhDeac said:
Right. Republicans are arguing that after we had gotten him back, Obama screwed up by not leaving him there.
Click to expand...

Interesting. I didn't know when those quotes were from. I assumed it was in the interim between us knowing he was out there as a prisoner somewhere and after we found out for sure he was a deserter.
 
PhDeac said:
So why were Republicans complaining that Obama wasn't trying hard enough to get him back?
Click to expand...

They aren't. They are saying he paid a too high a price (as is every other sensible person).
 
This is idiotic. We payed way to high a price to get back a traitor. It is not complicated. People trying to make this complicated are morons.

I hope the dude rots in jail and the irony is that for him to rot in jail, we released 5 guys who should rot in jail, but will now probably come back and kill Americans.

With that, I am out.
 
Sgt Hulka said:
This is idiotic. We payed way to high a price to get back a traitor. It is not complicated. People trying to make this complicated are morons.

I hope the dude rots in jail and the irony is that for him to rot in jail, we released 5 guys who should rot in jail, but will now probably come back and kill Americans.

With that, I am out.
Click to expand...

This is ... not right. "Leave No Man Behind" doesn't come with a damn asterisk.

Also should be mentioned that the Taliban and al-Qaeda aren't synonymous. The former is a deposed Afghan government. The latter is a terrorist organization. I know the words "terrorism" and "terrorist" are loosely thrown around nowadays, but there are actual exact definitions for those terms that don't necessarily apply here. Is there some overlap? Of course! But it's hard to take arguments seriously that don't know there was/is still a difference.
 
Last edited:
jhmd2000 said:
The State Department was in charge of the State Department. Where did I lose you?
Click to expand...

The part where the Republican majority in the house defunded the fuck out of the State Department. You're just being a dumbass now (again, I should say).
 
ONW said:
Scrutiny, sure, but don't act like Obama came up with the concept of prisoner exchanges just because you hate him.

"Despite Republican criticism and a planned congressional hearing, President Obama’s decision to trade five Taliban fighters for Army Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl was not a departure from history, U.S. law, or his long-delayed promises to end the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and close the military prison at Guantanamo Bay.

None of the men involved in the swap are members of al-Qaida. What’s more, the five detainees – who spent more than a decade at Guantanamo – were transferred under heavy restrictions that will prevent them from rejoining the battlefield, unlike hundreds of Guantanamo prisoners who were released by former President George W. Bush.

In fact, Bush released dozens of men held in secret CIA prisons. Yet prisoner swaps, even lop-sided ones, are nothing new. “[Exchanges] have long been viewed as a very human way of effectuating the goals of international law, which is to make war as humane as possible,” Steve Vladeck, a constitutional law professor at American University said in an interview.

Prisoner exchanges for individual soldiers are not uncommon among heavily militarized U.S. allies. In 2011, Israel traded 1,027 Palestinian prisoners for a single soldier, Gilad Shalit, who was kept captive in the Gaza Strip for five years."


"The United States has a long history of negotiating prisoner trades in times of war."

"There’s little that’s actually new here," said Mitchell Reiss, who worked in the State Department under President George W. Bush and served as national security adviser to Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney."

"Here’s a few, according to Reiss’ book:

-After the North Koreans captured the U.S.S. Pueblo in 1968, President Lyndon Johnson apologized for spying as part of negotiations to secure the release of 83 American prisoners.

-In 1970, President Richard Nixon pressured Israel, Switzerland, West Germany and Britain to release Palestinian prisoners after two airlines were hijacked by the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine.

-During the Iran hostage crisis of 1979 to 1981, President Jimmy Carter agreed to unfreeze $8 billion in frozen Iranian assets after more than a year of negotiations with the Iranian revolutionaries.

-In perhaps the most famous swap, after seven Americans were captured in Beirut, Lebanon, President Ronald Reagan agreed to send missiles to Iran in what became known as the Iran-Contra scandal.

-President Bill Clinton’s administration sat down with Hamas in attempts to negotiate peace with Israel. His administration also worked directly with the Taliban nearly two decades ago on several occasions to see if the group would hand over Osama bin Laden and other al-Qaida leaders.

Reiss also noted that President George W. Bush engaged in negotiations with Iran and North Korea even after decreeing them part of the "Axis of Evil."

James Jeffrey, a former ambassador to Iraq under Obama and deputy national security adviser for George W. Bush, agreed that "there have been many cases of negotiations with terrorists or rogue regimes for the return of Americans."

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...uz-us-policy-has-changed-now-we-make-deals-t/

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_...f_prisoners_for_bergdahl_was_illegal_the.html

http://time.com/2809612/bowe-bergdahl-obama-taliban/
Click to expand...

I hope you read this Sgt. Hulka. Even if you do, you probably will deny all of these realities, but I can sleep better knowing I tried to share information with people.
 
ONW said:
The part where the Republican majority in the house defunded the fuck out of the State Department. You're just being a dumbass now (again, I should say).
Click to expand...

It's too bad the State Department couldn't have pulled itself up by its bootstraps. Because that's what you're supposed to do when you don't have enough money, right?
 
DistrictDeacon said:
It's too bad the State Department couldn't have pulled itself up by its bootstraps. Because that's what you're supposed to do when you don't have enough money, right?
Click to expand...

I immediately assume Ted Cruz will come out as an advocate for disbanding the State Department because it is lazy.
 
Republicans have a great racket. They screw up government, blame government for being ineffective, then rinse and repeat.

Hulka, do you disagree that a prisoner swap puts fewer Americans in direct harm than a mission to retrieve a POW?

Do you agree that there is a big difference being sending troops to retrieve someone the bad guys want to live vs someone the bad guys are holding prisoner?
 
IrishSlim said:
This is ... not right. "Leave No Man Behind" doesn't come with a damn asterisk.

Also should be mentioned that the Taliban and al-Qaeda aren't synonymous. The former is a deposed Afghan government. The latter is a terrorist organization. I know the words "terrorism" and "terrorist" are loosely thrown around nowadays, but there are actual exact definitions for those terms that don't necessarily apply here. Is there some overlap? Of course! But it's hard to take arguments seriously that don't know there was/is still a difference.
Click to expand...

will of course defer to you...you were there. However, would you have traded a traitor (according to everyone in his unit)?/I]
 
ONW said:
The part where the Republican majority in the house defunded the fuck out of the State Department. You're just being a dumbass now (again, I should say).
Click to expand...

Ahhhh yes. Let's just pretend that the smart and only thing to so is to take the budget you have and send your people into a dangerous situation, ignore their requests for more security and/or withdrawal (which is by definition, the least costly solution), but persist in the face of known danger and leave your people exposed.

And then make up a story when it predictably fails.

And then blame the budget for your tone deaf management.

#undefeated
 
jhmd2000 said:
Ahhhh yes. Let's just pretend that the smart and only thing to so is to take the budget you have and send your people into a dangerous situation, ignore their requests for more security and/or withdrawal (which is by definition, the least costly solution), but persist in the face of known danger and leave your people exposed.

And then make up a story when it predictably fails.

And then blame the budget for your tone deaf management.

#undefeated
Click to expand...

And poor people should figure out how to buy more food for less money, or just not eat at all (which is by definition, the least costly option).
 
Let's cut through the bullshit: it was a fuck-up that the State Department didn't properly secure the embassy in Benghazi. It wasn't a conspiracy, as our favorite ginger-haired barrister swore it was a couple of years ago, but it was a fuck-up. Could Congress have better funded the security? Sure. But that doesn't excuse what happened over there.

That being said, let's talk about Bergdahl. As Irish stated, you don't leave anybody behind. And prior to his release, pubs made Bergdahl a cause celebre and an example of how the President didn't care about the troops. And they made such statements despite the fact that the Pentegon issued a report in 2010 saying that Bergdahl had walked away from his post. Only after he came back did our friends on the right freak the fuck out, likely due to Obama Derangement Syndrome.

FWIW, I don't give a fuck about who we gave back. DON'T. GIVE. A. FUCK. The guys have been in a hole at GITMO or 10 years, half of that with shit shoved up their ass and down their throats. They are stuck in Qatar, most likely being tracked 24/7.

Stop all the fucking bitching.
 
DeaconSig said:
Let's cut through the bullshit: it was a fuck-up that the State Department didn't properly secure the embassy in Benghazi. It wasn't a conspiracy, as our favorite ginger-haired barrister swore it was a couple of years ago, but it was a fuck-up. Could Congress have better funded the security? Sure. But that doesn't excuse what happened over there.

That being said, let's talk about Bergdahl. As Irish stated, you don't leave anybody behind. And prior to his release, pubs made Bergdahl a cause celebre and an example of how the President didn't care about the troops. And they made such statements despite the fact that the Pentegon issued a report in 2010 saying that Bergdahl had walked away from his post. Only after he came back did our friends on the right freak the fuck out, likely due to Obama Derangement Syndrome.

FWIW, I don't give a fuck about who we gave back. DON'T. GIVE. A. FUCK. The guys have been in a hole at GITMO or 10 years, half of that with shit shoved up their ass and down their throats. They are stuck in Qatar, most likely being tracked 24/7.

Stop all the fucking bitching.
Click to expand...

:golfclap:
 
PhDeac said:
Republicans have a great racket. They screw up government, blame government for being ineffective, then rinse and repeat.

Hulka, do you disagree that a prisoner swap puts fewer Americans in direct harm than a mission to retrieve a POW?

Do you agree that there is a big difference being sending troops to retrieve someone the bad guys want to live vs someone the bad guys are holding prisoner?
Click to expand...

Ph I can't figure out if you really believe the sh*t you say or you really just defend Obama and liberalism regardless of common sense.

Can you not agree it was a bad deal? I am all for getting soldiers back off battlefield....but at what cost? this was way to high of a price to pay especially when it was already known he was a deserter.....also the dog and pony show with Bo's parents and President Obama was sickening considering what we knew then and what the left is just now figuring out.

Does this administration ever come out on top on deals? He negotiates harder with republicans.

Its a joke and all sides of the aisle would do themselves a favor by acknowledging it. You won't lose the white house over it but you might gain some credibility in future debates.
 
people keep saying it was way too high a price to pay....based on what?

it's not like we traded a PFC for 5 Rommels, here, guys
 
ImTheCaptain said:
people keep saying it was way too high a price to pay....based on what?

it's not like we traded a PFC for 5 Rommels, here, guys
Click to expand...

So 5 terrorists that could re enter the fight and kill more people for 1 deserter that will go to jail in the us?

Does that feel like a good deal to you?
 
ImTheCaptain said:
people keep saying it was way too high a price to pay....based on what?

it's not like we traded a PFC for 5 Rommels, here, guys
Click to expand...

How many americans died capturing the 5 terrorist? how many people did they kill before they were captured? how many will any of them kill going forward? How many died looking for Bo? Does bringing Bo home lift morale of the troops? Americans? does the terrorist go home lift morale for the terrorist? I honestly see no upside here.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top