• 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

Deacs89 said:
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.
Click to expand...

Who gives a fuck. Do you really think we gave up high value targets? We gave up guys who had been tortured in Gitmo for a decade. And now they are stuck in Qatar.

The Israelis gave up 1000 Palestinian prisoners for 1 soldier. We gave up 5. Just stop all the whining.
 
DeaconSig said:
Who gives a fuck. Do you really think we gave up high value targets? We gave up guys who had been tortured in Gitmo for a decade. And now they are stuck in Qatar.

The Israelis gave up 1000 Palestinian prisoners for 1 soldier. We gave up 5. Just stop all the whining.
Click to expand...

Did I bang your gf in university? honestly if I did I am sorry.
 
The number of question marks in a post is inversely correlated with intelligence
 
I think the better question is why does this matter at all? So our president traded a dude for five other dudes. The five other dudes are being tracked and followed by multiple intelligence agencies including the United States while the other dude is being charged with desertion. Poor judgment to make the trade? Maybe. Does it really matter at all in the scheme of things? I can't imagine that it does.

Anyone who is passionate about this in either ardently defending Obama or excoriating Obama for this is probably just more interested in political games than focusing on the magnitude of the actual issue.
 
Guy I work with is ex-Delta Force. His take is that the trade was right but done, or at least explained, for the wrong reasons. He thinks the trade was fine, but the public messaging should have been "let it be known that if you walk off a base and join the enemy, we will spare no effort to make sure we're the ones who get to kill you." The problem, of course, is that in this country (even in the military) you're innocent until proven guilty and it's not really kosher for the President (or anyone else in authority) to declare a POW a traitor in absentia and without trial. So there was never going to be a perfect outcome here, and all the talking heads, internet posters, and sundry congresscritters get to kick it around to score as many points as possible until time runs out.
 
Wakeforest22890 said:
I think the better question is why does this matter at all? So our president traded a dude for five other dudes. The five other dudes are being tracked and followed by multiple intelligence agencies including the United States while the other dude is being charged with desertion. Poor judgment to make the trade? Maybe. Does it really matter at all in the scheme of things? I can't imagine that it does.

Anyone who is passionate about this in either ardently defending Obama or excoriating Obama for this is probably just more interested in political games than focusing on the magnitude of the actual issue.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't say I am passionate about it or excoriating Obama unfairly. I am entitled to my opinion and I think it was a horrible trade. I personally do not care what past presidents have done or country's. At face value America got fleeced.

I do think it matters when the trade potentially puts future american lives at risk.
 
Deacs89 said:
I wouldn't say I am passionate about it or excoriating Obama unfairly. I am entitled to my opinion and I think it was a horrible trade. I personally do not care what past presidents have done or country's. At face value America got fleeced.

I do think it matters when the trade potentially puts future american lives at risk.
Click to expand...

I love this particular brand of logic. It's trotted out all the time by the neocons, chickenhawks, security obsessives, drone-mongers, and so forth (which categories expressly include President Obama and his administration when convenient for them).

American lives are far more at risk from the Interstate Highway System than they are from these five dudes. Cigarettes kill as many Americans in a week as were killed in 9/11 and the Afghanistan and Iraq wars. You have a better chance of getting struck by lightning than killed by a terrorist. And yet politicians act as though "keep Americans safe" is in their job descriptions and oaths of office. When it suits them, they all say that whatever the other party wants to do will "put American lives at risk" as if that's the only thing that matters in making any decision. It's a downright silly and shallow way to analyze the world, and it would be funny - except it leads to insane decisions that greatly jeopardize the freedoms of law-abiding Americans.

Maybe, just maybe, there's a reason for bringing an American soldier home, and trying him publicly for his crimes, that outweighs some unsubstantiated and incredibly marginal risk that 5 closely monitored dudes in Qatar pose to "American lives".
 
Deacon923 said:
I love this particular brand of logic. It's trotted out all the time by the neocons, chickenhawks, security obsessives, drone-mongers, and so forth (which categories expressly include President Obama and his administration when convenient for them).

American lives are far more at risk from the Interstate Highway System than they are from these five dudes. Cigarettes kill as many Americans in a week as were killed in 9/11 and the Afghanistan and Iraq wars. You have a better chance of getting struck by lightning than killed by a terrorist. And yet politicians act as though "keep Americans safe" is in their job descriptions and oaths of office. When it suits them, they all say that whatever the other party wants to do will "put American lives at risk" as if that's the only thing that matters in making any decision. It's a downright silly and shallow way to analyze the world, and it would be funny - except it leads to insane decisions that greatly jeopardize the freedoms of law-abiding Americans.

Maybe, just maybe, there's a reason for bringing an American soldier home, and trying him publicly for his crimes, that outweighs some unsubstantiated and incredibly marginal risk that 5 closely monitored dudes in Qatar pose to "American lives".
Click to expand...

That's bullshit. There is like a 30% or more chance that one of those five guys is going to come back to America, fuck 89 in the pooper, make hulka gay marry him, and then vote without showing proper ID. That terrorist will then impregnate a woman and not marry her, adding another child to the cycle of dependency created by the Great Society.
 
Deacon923 said:
I love this particular brand of logic. It's trotted out all the time by the neocons, chickenhawks, security obsessives, drone-mongers, and so forth (which categories expressly include President Obama and his administration when convenient for them).

American lives are far more at risk from the Interstate Highway System than they are from these five dudes. Cigarettes kill as many Americans in a week as were killed in 9/11 and the Afghanistan and Iraq wars. You have a better chance of getting struck by lightning than killed by a terrorist. And yet politicians act as though "keep Americans safe" is in their job descriptions and oaths of office. When it suits them, they all say that whatever the other party wants to do will "put American lives at risk" as if that's the only thing that matters in making any decision. It's a downright silly and shallow way to analyze the world, and it would be funny - except it leads to insane decisions that greatly jeopardize the freedoms of law-abiding Americans.

Maybe, just maybe, there's a reason for bringing an American soldier home, and trying him publicly for his crimes, that outweighs some unsubstantiated and incredibly marginal risk that 5 closely monitored dudes in Qatar pose to "American lives".
Click to expand...

so we should stop worrying about white racists cops killing black community and focus on highway safety. Thanks for coming out.
 
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...
Not disagreeing, as you would be one to know. Not even entering this debate, just looking for clarification/historical context. What is the stance of the US government with respect to this POW situation? Is there actually nothing they could do that would prevent us from seeking to retrieve them? Deacon923, your friend seems to be indicating that we would go after/trade for even known deserters (so technically not POWs), even if the government didn't publicly explain it this way. Are there any historical examples of 100% known deserters - not brainwashed by the enemy in captivity, but openly seeking the enemy's good while still a part of US forces - whom we have intentionally left behind/alone?
 
Deacs89 said:
so we should stop worrying about white racists cops killing black community and focus on highway safety. Thanks for coming out.
Click to expand...

Oh good, you topped your previous shallow analysis with an even shallower brand of idiocy. Really doing work this morning.
 
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, by immediately making up more bullshit: 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...

Who do you think you are arguing with? Just make shit up out of thin air and then knock it down? Boo, hiss.
 
Here's some new information on Bergdahl. Maybe we ought to... how's that saying go... "wait for all the facts to come out" before determining that Bergdahl intended to desert to the Taliban.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/03/27/politics/bergdahl-intended-to-walk-to-nearest-base/index.html

Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl left his unit in eastern Afghanistan in July 2009 intending to walk to the nearest U.S. military outpost to report wrongdoing, believing he could not trust his own commanders to deal with his concerns, an Army report says, according to sources familiar with the investigation. It is the clearest indication yet of the motive behind his decision to leave his post.

Bergdahl was planning to report what he believed to be problems with "order and discipline" in his unit, a senior Defense official tells CNN. A second official says Bergdahl had "concerns about leadership issues at his base."
Click to expand...
 
Deacon923 said:
Here's some new information on Bergdahl. Maybe we ought to... how's that saying go... "wait for all the facts to come out" before determining that Bergdahl intended to desert to the Taliban.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/03/27/politics/bergdahl-intended-to-walk-to-nearest-base/index.html
Click to expand...

From the link: "It is not clear how much of this information about Bergdahl's intent was conveyed to investigators directly by Bergdahl or may have come from testimony of others."

If it turns out he is the only source for this theory, it shouldn't carry much weight.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top