• 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

RJKarl said:
We've traded spies with USSR. Reagan traded guns and money for hostages.

We make a promise to every person who enlists in our military and their families. That promise is we leave no one behind.

We also have been in negotiations with the Taliban to peacefully re-enter the Afghani scene for many years. This could also be an olive branch from us.

This isn't perfect. It would be incredibly simplistic to think there's nothing going on behind the scenes here.
Click to expand...

Know anything about the promise our soldiers make to their country and each other? You cannot possibly believe the Taliban have any interest in peace or anything the West has to offer.
 
DeacLaw05 said:
Yes. Trading arms for hostages was a terrible idea, and the single biggest mistake of the Reagan presidency.
Click to expand...

I might think his total disregard of the HIV/AIDS epidemic for years and its impact on the US blood supply killed more Americans than Iran-Contra.

His knowing scam of Supply-side economics is still being felt by the dramatic and intentional contraction of the middle class.
 
I fear this might spark the taking of more American hostages to be used as bargaining chips in future negotiations.

I sincerely hope we plan on trying this guy for deserting.
 
There has to be way more to this story than any of us know and probably will ever know. I have little confidence that this is about some "leave no one behind" ideal. By the looks of it this is not your typical POW situation and the "deal" to trade the high level Taliban fighters for Bergdahl has been on the table the whole time. If this truly is about "leave no one behind" why not do this 5 years ago?
 
Have no idea what happened, but if the military believed/had evidence that he was a deserter and/or traitor why would they have promoted him while in captivity?
 
FuckmouthedRube said:
Have no idea what happened, but if the military believed/had evidence that he was a deserter and/or traitor why would they have promoted him while in captivity?
Click to expand...

Putting a happy face on a pile of shit. I'm guessing you're not old enough to remember Vietnam.
 
Lots of conspiracy theories being thrown around. I am as Libertarian as it gets (one step from an Anarchist) but I don't usually get that skeptical. I tend to think this is more about something that we have no clue about.
 
94Deac said:
Putting a happy face on a pile of shit. I'm guessing you're not old enough to remember Vietnam.
Click to expand...

Not only that, but failing to promote him while we still officially called him a POW would be a big deal.
 
SkinsNDeacs said:
Lots of conspiracy theories being thrown around. I am as Libertarian as it gets (one step from an Anarchist) but I don't usually get that skeptical. I tend to think this is more about something that we have no clue about.
Click to expand...

The bolded made me laugh.

The last sentence I tend to agree with.
 
FuckmouthedRube said:
Have no idea what happened, but if the military believed/had evidence that he was a deserter and/or traitor why would they have promoted him while in captivity?
Click to expand...

The promotions he received were automatic promotions; pending he wasn't flagged from favorable action(s), which it appears he must not have been. I don't recall if there was a formal investigation or any sort of UCMJ action surrounding suspicions of deserting which would have meant he was not flagged, at least for deserting, and therefore eligible for promotion.
 
Whenever a war ends (like this is), even the generals you capture are returned. Like it or not, that's who these guys were when we captured them.
 
RJKarl said:
Whenever a war ends (like this is), even the generals you capture are returned. Like it or not, that's who these guys were when we captured them.
Click to expand...

The "war" ended? So these dickheads are just going to go back to their old stomping grounds and hang up their guns and just sit around telling old Gitmo stories while checking out the nice ass on the old goat in the yard? Fuck that. We should've hanged 'em in Times Square and submerged their bodies in pigs blood.
 
If you read the Hastings article he gets a quote from an unnamed democratic strategist that bringing the last POW back would be a big "win" for Obama in an election year if it was done properly. Essentially that's what Barack did except the election was two years later then the article writes about.

Cynically bringing this guy back this weekend made sense in that it allowed Obama to deflect some of the searing attention off the VA disaster particularly before the Sunday shows. It also plays very well with his "end the war" base (and majority of americans even if we're abusing the definition of end see BSA and approval for troops for the next 10 years)

Again legally Obama is in the clear in this instance but politically if Burgdahl recovers and holds the same disillusioned views of the Afghan debacle and the military in general and then talks about them to the press things could get ugly because it then looks like 5 senior commanders were traded for a guy who willingly left his base . Would not be surprised if he and his family are forced to sign NDA's immediately on top of the ones already signed.

Once again encourage everyone to read the Hastings article. Would have loved to have read or heard his analysis. Tragedy he "died" at such a young age.
 
There are days when I think the Obama administration could invade Israel and RJ would find a way to defend it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top