LAST US POW RETURNED from the Taliban

[Deacon923]

Let me spell it out for you, since you apparently are incapable of understanding basic logic. Your argument against the Bergdahl trade is that it "potentially puts American lives at risk". I spelled out for you why that is an incredibly weak argument. There may be other arguments against the Bergdahl trade, but "putting American lives at risk" is not even in the same room as a reasonable argument.

Your laughable counter to this was to try to downplay police malfeasance and racism because it doesn't kill as many people as car accidents. That is true. It's also stupid, because literally nobody in the world is against police malfeasance and racism because it "puts American lives at risk". I'm not even sure your attempt at debate rises to the level of a strawman, because it's just idiotic. People are concerned about police malfeasance and racism because, among other reasons, we want to live in a free and democratic country where all citizens get due process of law and have their constitutional rights protected. In other words, because there are bigger things at stake than how many American lives are "at risk."

Get a clue.

 

[Wakeforest22890]

sig irish and 923 doing some serious work on this thread.

 

[Deacon923]

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.

Of course. The larger point is that first he was an American hero until the President made a deal for him, then he became a condemned deserter, and it turns out that, surprise, we don't know all the facts or his actual story, and so maybe we all need to let the process run its course before deciding which side we're on.

I do think it is interesting that all the testimony we've heard to this point about him being a deserter comes from his former squadmates who by all accounts did not care for him, and now his story is apparently that he was going to inform on his squad for being bad actors. Seems like it may have been a pretty dysfunctional unit.

 

[Deacs89]

Let me spell it out for you, since you apparently are incapable of understanding basic logic. Your argument against the Bergdahl trade is that it "potentially puts American lives at risk". I spelled out for you why that is an incredibly weak argument. There may be other arguments against the Bergdahl trade, but "putting American lives at risk" is not even in the same room as a reasonable argument.

Your laughable counter to this was to try to downplay police malfeasance and racism because it doesn't kill as many people as car accidents. That is true. It's also stupid, because literally nobody in the world is against police malfeasance and racism because it "puts American lives at risk". I'm not even sure your attempt at debate rises to the level of a strawman, because it's just idiotic. People are concerned about police malfeasance and racism because, among other reasons, we want to live in a free and democratic country where all citizens get due process of law and have their constitutional rights protected. In other words, because there are bigger things at stake than how many American lives are "at risk."

Get a clue.

You do remember posting this right?

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,

You are the one that used interstate highway deaths and cigarettes to down play the risk these terrorist posed and therefore did not deserve the attention they were getting. i am embarrassed for you. Honestly I just think its a bad deal. I really do think there is a chance they go back to the battle field. American men and women risked there lives to capture these people and i think that is worthy of concern. But you need to calm the fuck down with your tantrum.

 

[Deacon923]

89, your only argument against the Bergdahl trade is that it "puts American lives at risk." I explained to you why that's a stupid argument. You helpfully reposted my rebuttal for all to see, then doubled down on your argument. I heartily thank you for feeling embarrassment for me, but humbly suggest that it is misdirected. Have a nice day.

 

[jhmd2000]

Do we need to go back to the thread about General Petraeus and Benghazi?

Be my guest. It's your accusation. Ironically, I suspect there may not be quite enough courage to go prove your strawman is real.

 

[Deacs89]

89, your only argument against the Bergdahl trade is that it "puts American lives at risk." I explained to you why that's a stupid argument. You helpfully reposted my rebuttal for all to see, then doubled down on your argument. I heartily thank you for feeling embarrassment for me, but humbly suggest that it is misdirected. Have a nice day.

Actually its a little more nuanced than that. Here are my questions at trying to understand the trade and why it was done.
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.

Feel free to enlighten me?

 

[ImTheCaptain]

people keep saying 'traitor' but i havent' seen a single piece of evidence, even from the right wing that he intended to actual join/aid the enemy

 

[WFU71]

Of course. The larger point is that first he was an American hero until the President made a deal for him, then he became a condemned deserter, and it turns out that, surprise, we don't know all the facts or his actual story, and so maybe we all need to let the process run its course before deciding which side we're on.

I do think it is interesting that all the testimony we've heard to this point about him being a deserter comes from his former squadmates who by all accounts did not care for him, and now his story is apparently that he was going to inform on his squad for being bad actors. Seems like it may have been a pretty dysfunctional unit.

OK, I have missed the stuff about him being a hero before the president made a deal for him. Can you help me with some links?

FWIW, some of his former platoon members say their problem wasn't the swap itself, but the Rose Garden ceremony and the "honor and distinction" comment.

 

[Deacon923]

Actually its a little more nuanced than that. Here are my questions at trying to understand the trade and why it was done.
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.

Feel free to enlighten me?

Are you trying to understand it? Because it seems like you've already decided there's "no upside". I diagnose "Obama Derangement Syndrome", take two stiff drinks and call me back... never.

 

[Deacon923]

Republican legislators disagree with you.



http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/06/03/bowe-bergdahl-release_n_5439644.html

Its such hypocritical horseshit for the knuckle-draggers on this board, but I guess I shouldn't be surprised.

Why did he become a deserter when he was recovered, but not when he was being used to bitch about the President not bringing him home?

WFU 71 - see quoted post and links thereto. I'm not sure anyone called him a "hero", that was hyperbole on my part. The point is that as long as he was a prisoner, the elephants were all over Obama to bring him home, and as soon as Obama brought him home, the elephants did the usual Obama derangement syndrome about face and jumped all over each to declare what a bad deal it was.

 

[Deacs89]

Are you trying to understand it? Because it seems like you've already decided there's "no upside". I diagnose "Obama Derangement Syndrome", take two stiff drinks and call me back... never.

Thanks for the advice. Also my no upside is my pov with the questions I posed. I understand you not wanting to take a whack at them. also great joke it was very witty.

 

[WFU71]

Thanks, 923. I notice that article alludes to those 5 Taliban guys being able to leave Qatar after one year, which is a few months away. If that's true, how are we going to monitor them if/when they return to Afghanistan?

 

[jhmd2000]

Thanks, 923. I notice that article alludes to those 5 Taliban guys being able to leave Qatar after one year, which is a few months away. If that's true, how are we going to monitor them if/when they return to Afghanistan?

Spoiler alert: We're not.

 

[Deacon923]

Thanks, 923. I notice that article alludes to those 5 Taliban guys being able to leave Qatar after one year, which is a few months away. If that's true, how are we going to monitor them if/when they return to Afghanistan?

Refer to my earlier posts for explanation of why it doesn't matter. This handwringing over the 5 taliban dudes is just silly and lacks any kind of realistic perspective on the threat they (don't) present. Bush released thousands of suspected Taliban/Qaeda/general bad guys, some after torturing them. How many of them are being monitored? How many Sunnis have been radicalized by mistreatment at the hands of Iraqi troops we funded? How many of them are being monitored? How many Iranian Republican Guard troops have been expressly trained to kill Americans? How many of them are being monitored?

Again, you and every other American literally have a higher chance of being struck by lightning than killed by a terrorist. Your chances of being killed by one of these particular 5 guys is probably about the same as being struck by lightning, a comet, and a falling satellite all at once. Understanding that basic fact is an important step toward viewing the overall war on terror, and the sacrifices in freedom we have all been asked to make for it, in a realistic light.

 

[WFU71]

Refer to my earlier posts for explanation of why it doesn't matter. This handwringing over the 5 taliban dudes is just silly and lacks any kind of realistic perspective on the threat they (don't) present. Bush released thousands of suspected Taliban/Qaeda/general bad guys, some after torturing them. How many of them are being monitored? How many Sunnis have been radicalized by mistreatment at the hands of Iraqi troops we funded? How many of them are being monitored? How many Iranian Republican Guard troops have been expressly trained to kill Americans? How many of them are being monitored?

Again, you and every other American literally have a higher chance of being struck by lightning than killed by a terrorist. Your chances of being killed by one of these particular 5 guys is probably about the same as being struck by lightning, a comet, and a falling satellite all at once. Understanding that basic fact is an important step toward viewing the overall war on terror, and the sacrifices in freedom we have all been asked to make for it, in a realistic light.

I asked about monitoring them because you referred to them as "5 closely monitored dudes in Qatar".

Since you've referenced the long odds of an American being killed by a terrorist a couple of times, how do you believe the overall war on terror should be conducted?

 

[Wakeforest22890]

Sparingly and from a distance is my answer.

 

[Deacon923]

I asked about monitoring them because you referred to them as "5 closely monitored dudes in Qatar".

Since you've referenced the long odds of an American being killed by a terrorist a couple of times, how do you believe the overall war on terror should be conducted?

The war in Afghanistan was a reasonable response to the 9/11 attacks and the apparent continuing threat posed by Al Qaeda and the Taliban having control of a state. There should never have been a war in Iraq, as it had nothing to do with Al Qaeda or terrorism, and has spawned far more terrorists than would ever had existed had we left Saddam Hussein in power. The NSA abuses, PATRIOT act and all the TSA security theater are the parts of the "war on terror" that are most objectionable, since they actively reduce American liberty and freedom based on a hugely skewed misperception of the actual threat faced. The ongoing drone war is misguided and, like Iraq, likely creates more terrorists than it kills; and the people it kills don't actually pose much of a threat to the US. What else do you want to know?

 

[WFU71]

I agree with much of that.

 

[jhmd2000]

I asked about monitoring them because you referred to them as "5 closely monitored dudes in Qatar".

Since you've referenced the long odds of an American being killed by a terrorist a couple of times, how do you believe the overall war on terror should be conducted?

Meanwhile, we have a 100+ page thread on being shot by a uniformed police officer. Not so much on the supermajority of populations being born into fatherless homes. But when it comes to terrorism, suddenly we get really and conveniently into percentage of impact. But "we're cutting through the bullshit" and "we're good people." Just ask. Or don't.