• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

US soldier freed from captivity in Afghanistan

TheNextEra said:
So you think holding people without trial for the rest of their lives is going to win the hearts and minds of Muslim countries?
Click to expand...

You think there's ANYthing we can do that will win their hearts and minds?
 
RabidAlpaca said:
So if the enemy doesn't wear uniforms, the United States military can and should kill or permanently detain anyone arbitrarily because of it? That's kind of ridiculous isn't it? What would you think of say, Russia, arbitrarily labeling US citizens as terrorists then holding them indefinitely?

Fair game right? Those civilians shouldn't have been wearing civilian clothes.
Click to expand...

They should have been executed on the battlefield.
 
apdst said:
You think there's ANYthing we can do that will win their hearts and minds?
Click to expand...

No, which is why it was a dumb idea for Rumsfield to even say we could and why we shouldn't have gone in the first place. Bottom line either try them, let them go or execute them. It does no one any good keeping them there and only further hurts our standing the world community. If they were tried or executed or released the world would hate us for a time but forget eventually. Keeping them there without trial only hurts us.
 
Helix said:
you support holding enemy combatants for life without trial. i do not, because that does not jibe with my vision of America. we're never going to agree on this. probably should just agree to move on.
Click to expand...

You have a civilian vision for America which is incompatible with fighting a war. Fighting wars using civilian logic is how wars are lost.

In the end, your vision has unleashed the same blood thirsty monsters on Afghanistan as ruled their before the first US boot hit the ground.
 
jmotivator said:
You have a civilian vision for America which is incompatible with fighting a war. Fighting wars using civilian logic is how wars are lost.

In the end, your vision has unleashed the same blood thirsty monsters on Afghanistan as ruled their before the first US boot hit the ground.
Click to expand...

Then put them on trial. You say they are enemy combatants and can be held then why not try them as well?
 
nota bene said:
If I didn't oppose the death penalty, maybe I would. I agree with Helix, though, that holding these men this long without a trial is "un-American."

I don't understand either why we returned five of theirs for one of ours.
Click to expand...

We did it to the Shutzstaffel after WW2. We also summarily executed prisoners. War is ugly and you can't win by playing fair, sometimes.
 
TheNextEra said:
No, which is why it was a dumb idea for Rumsfield to even say we could and why we shouldn't have gone in the first place. Bottom line either try them, let them go or execute them. It does no one any good keeping them there and only further hurts our standing the world community. If they were tried or executed or released the world would hate us for a time but forget eventually. Keeping them there without trial only hurts us.
Click to expand...

Since no matter what we do they're going to hate us, what's wrong with doing what's best for us?
 
TheNextEra said:
So you think holding people without trial for the rest of their lives is going to win the hearts and minds of Muslim countries?
Click to expand...

These people?

Taliban Execution.JPG

No.

These people?

Afghanistan-Elections-14.jpg

Yes.
 
RabidAlpaca said:
So if the enemy doesn't wear uniforms, the United States military can and should kill or permanently detain anyone arbitrarily because of it? That's kind of ridiculous isn't it? What would you think of say, Russia, arbitrarily labeling US citizens as terrorists then holding them indefinitely?

Fair game right? Those civilians shouldn't have been wearing civilian clothes.
Click to expand...

ARBITRARY being the key word there. If they were locking up actual terrorists, they would be justified in doing so. Arbitrarily doing so would not be justified and they would have to answer for it under international laws.
 
APACHERAT said:
Do you have any other examples besides of Stockdale and Wainwright ? I didn't think so. And Gen. MacArthur did go public about Wainwright.

Both were political.

Glad to see you are at least making an attempt of learning history.
Keep educating yourself.
You might find out that someone who served before you is why you are still alive today.
Click to expand...

Sorry my friend you don't know what you are talking about.
First you said its unheard of it the US military now you change it to its only done for politics.
Here is something for you to look up. Look up the code of US fighting forces (the code of conduct) enacted in the 50s. Go to article 6 and look at what it says.
You are just wrong there is no two ways about it.

Maybe it is you who needs to learn some history.
The rest of your post is just more typical rat nonsense.
 
Last edited:
apdst said:
Since no matter what we do they're going to hate us, what's wrong with doing what's best for us?
Click to expand...

What's best for us is to try them and imprison them for life or execute them. It is not in our best interest to hold them without trial as it only hurts us and is the source of propaganda against us.
 
Glen Contrarian said:
And you know what? I just read Guderian's Panzer Leader, and he pointed out that the German High Command said the same thing to the Wehrmacht before the commencement of Operation Barbarossa, that the Soviet Union was not a signatory to [whatever agreement there was at the time - can't remember offhand what he said it was], and so they didn't have to treat Soviet prisoners like they did those from France or England. And we all know how that went for those who were taken prisoner on the Eastern Front.

We should not use the fact that the Taliban aren't a signatory to the Geneva convention as an excuse to refuse to do prisoner exchanges anyway...because the reason we do prisoner exchanges is not about whether one is a signatory to a piece of paper. It's all about bringing our troops home, no matter what.
Click to expand...

Except it isnt. Its about, and always has been about, protecting the US from physical threats. Bringing soldiers home is a secondary goal. Releasing the enemy to continue the fight endangers American lives.
 
jonny5 said:
Except it isnt. Its about, and always has been about, protecting the US from physical threats. Bringing soldiers home is a secondary goal. Releasing the enemy to continue the fight endangers American lives.
Click to expand...

We swapped prisoners with the North Koreans, the Chinese, and the North Vietnamese. Are you going to say they weren't our enemies? Each of them killed a lot more Americans than has al-Qaeda (or the Taliban which is NOT al-Qaeda but was the 'government' of Afghanistan when we invaded).

Swapping prisoners is something we and other nations have done since before any of us were born.

And here's something else to think about, guy - if we as a nation said, "We're not going to do whatever it takes to bring you home alive", what would that do to the morale of our soldiers in the field, if they knew that America might decide that they weren't worth whatever it took to bring them home alive?
 
rhinefire said:
Not 5 for 1. The Taliban got back five dedicated high ranking warriors bent on the destruction of America. We got back one soldier that is suspected of desertion and possibly was never a threat of any proportion to our enemies. .
Click to expand...

Stop calling Bergdahl a soldier. Not even the French Foreign Legion wanted him. He's a deserter.
 
MMC said:
Did you hear Susan Rice yesterday on this issue. This woman is Joke and embarrassment to all Americans.....and BO keeps her incompetent and failed ass Right up in the Peoples face. On Purpose!

Click to expand...


Is Susan Rice the best liar that the Obama administration has ?

As Obama said about judging his Presidency, "Judge me by who I surround myself with."
 
A few things...

First in terms of the "put them on trial thing". When speaking about people we picked up on foreign soil due to their aiding of those seeking to attack this country....for what exactly? We're not accusing them of violating U.S. law within the U.S. How exactly? Are we supposed to be sending FBI or US Marshall personnel into a foreign country, just hope that foreign country doesn't mind it, and begin to actually launch an official investigation to gather "evidence" for a criminal trial? So essentially, when it comes to the nitty gritty, you don't want us keeping POWs because "trying" them is an unrealistic and ludicrous endevour. So congrats, what your basically saying is "if we capture someone just kill them". That's really pretty much it. You'll hem and haw about how that's not what you're advocating for. You'll keep parroting the same illogical, unrealistic, idiotic notion that only works because you're a keyboard jocky on the internet mewling on and on over something you'll never have to deal with in a realistic way, so why would anyone expect you to do anything but keep posting a cop out so you can lie to yourself that you're so much smarter and better. So congrats...we can't hold them so we kill them, thus still "ruining a life" but providing no actionable benefit to us at the same time. Wow, go you! :roll:

Second, I'm happy for the family that they have their son back. With that said, I don't judge foreign and defense policy actions based on rainbows and lollipop emotions. I'm waiting till we have more information about this, but on the surface trading away 5 prisoners who have actively worked against the U.S. before in exchange for one american soldier, regardless of all the extra curriculors people are going back and forth about, immedietely makes me scratch my head a bit. I'm ABSOLUTELY for the family and have no issue with anyone else being happy with the family. Those criticizing people for being happy about that are being ridiculous. Those criticizing people for actually looking a foreign policy action from a policy perspective rather than whether or not it gives them a ooey gooey warm feeling in their stomachs ALSO are being ridiculous.

Third, it does look like the Administration violated the law here on my initial review of this. You can't sign a law and at the same time sign a signing statement claiming you don't agree with the law so you're just going to ignore it, and then expect people just to accept that. This seems like the law was absolutely violated here, and the congress has a duty to it's constituents to at least take SOME kind of action. Even if that's simply getting this up to the SCOTUS to rule whether or not Obama's suggestion that the law is unconstitutional is correct, I'm fine with that. But you can't have a President sign a law, immedietely declare he will not follow said law, and then when a chance provides itself actively engages in ignoring said law...and then just shrug it off and move on. You want to claim people are being partisan for attacking the Obama Administration? Tell me how an administration wantonly and brazenly breaking a law, and suggesting people shouldn't speak negatively about that, is somehow anything other than partisan?
 
APACHERAT said:
Is Susan Rice the best liar that the Obama administration has ?

As Obama said about judging his Presidency, "Judge me by who I surround myself with."
Click to expand...

Its a slap in the face.....what reason is there for the NSC Advisor to be out speaking on this? Real answer.....none!
 
Glen Contrarian said:
Concerning the promotions:

POW personnel continue to be considered for promotion along with their contemporaries. Policy provides for each missing or captured officer/enlisted member to be considered for promotion to the next higher grade when they are eligible. The eligibility for officers is based on the date of rank in their current grade. For enlisted members, eligibility is based on time in grade and time in service.

And FYI, that guy wearing the "Taliban beard" at the White House was Bergdahl's DAD - not Bergdahl himself. But I guess that beards like that are now automatically signs of being part of the Taliban and are now verboten in America - quick - somebody go arrest the stars of Duck Dynasty and half the Harley riders in America!!!!

For the above assumptions you made, AR, you may know install a hinge in your knee so that you can begin kicking yourself in the ass.
Click to expand...

Half of the Harley Riders wear beards ?

It's 2014 not 1968.
 
TheNextEra said:
What's best for us is to try them and imprison them for life or execute them. It is not in our best interest to hold them without trial as it only hurts us and is the source of propaganda against us.
Click to expand...

Keeping them out of circulation might be a good thing...maybe.
 
apdst said:
Keeping them out of circulation might be a good thing...maybe.
Click to expand...

So then put them on trial and sentence them for life. Keeping them in custody without trial is not helping us in the least especially with propaganda.
 
TheNextEra said:
So then put them on trial and sentence them for life. Keeping them in custody without trial is not helping us in the least especially with propaganda.
Click to expand...

We're going to lose the propaganda war in the ME. Just face reality, there's no way we can do it that will make the Muslims happy.
 
Zyphlin said:
A few things...

Second, I'm waiting till we have more information about this,


Third, it does look like the Administration violated the law here on my initial review of this. You can't sign a law and at the same time sign a signing statement claiming you don't agree with the law so you're just going to ignore it, and then expect people just to accept that.
Click to expand...

You are aware if there weren't a lot of vets pounding away on their keyboards right now, no questions would have been asked.

The Obama administration does expect all Americans to except what laws Obama enforces and what laws he refuses to enforce. The list is long in which what laws that the Obama administration refuses to enforce.
 
apdst said:
We're going to lose the propaganda war in the ME. Just face reality, there's no way we can do it that will make the Muslims happy.
Click to expand...

Sorry, but that simply isn't true. Putting them on trial and sentencing them for life is better than just holding them without trial. That is FACT. That is the reality YOU need to face.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom