• 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!

Bowe Bergdahl, U.S. soldier held in Afghanistan, freed in swap

Lursa said:
You are missing the point, deliberately.

Their own soldier put them in danger, notht the enemy. It was a waste.
Click to expand...

I'm not missing the point. You're using wonky logic and unfairly transferring responsibility to Bergdahl. Assuming Bergdahl deserted, he is not responsible for or guilty of anything but desertion.
 
Jack Fabulous said:
Given the people we gave up to actually get this deal done I think the bolded part is a stretch. It violates the spirit of "we don't negotiate with terrorists" and I don't believe that other Presidents would have made this same deal under the same circumstances.

The rest of your post I agree with. We should exhaust all reasonable efforts to bring them home no matter if they are perceived as deserters or not. Those questions can be dealt with after.
Click to expand...

Doesn't matter. We swapped North Koreans and Vietnamese for our POW's in the past, and their nations had killed a heck of a lot more of our troops than the Taliban had. We swapped POW's with Germany at the end of WWI. The Union and the South swapped POW's many times. We swapped POW's with England in both the Revolutionary War and the War of 1812. And in ALL these cases, the enemy had killed FAR more of our troops than the Taliban had...and in the cases of the Civil War, the War of 1812, and the Revolutionary War, these presented an existential danger to America itself. And then there's the small matter of Reagan trading 1500 missiles to Iran for American hostages.

So...NO, I can't think of a single other president who would not have authorized the same thing.

On top of all that, we had real concern about his physical health, which seemed to be deteriorating. Again, whatever he did or did not do, it is American tradition that we bring him home - and if we had allowed him to die, then we would have broken that tradition...and of course the Right would have had a field day with that one, too.
 
Filthy McNasty said:
Then there is also the dangerous precedent this "trade" sets up, particularly with regard to our soldiers being kidnapped for ransom as we see with the PLO and Israel. As the top-ranking Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee said, this a “dangerous precedent that puts all Americans at risk throughout the world.”
Ruppersberger Calls Taliban Prisoner Exchange ‘A Dangerous Precedent’ « CBS Baltimore
Click to expand...
This was a terrible deal on several different levels and at this point I honestly believe it's purpose is symbolic. It makes sense in no other way.
 
Amadeus said:
I'm not missing the point. You're using wonky logic and unfairly transferring responsibility to Bergdahl. Assuming Bergdahl deserted, he is not responsible for or guilty of anything but desertion.
Click to expand...

If he hadnt deserted, men would not have been sent to find him, and died in the process.

Nothing wonky about that logic.
 
Lursa said:
You are missing the point, deliberately.

Their own soldier put them in danger, notht the enemy. It was a waste.

Not only that, he knows there would be a search for himself, in enemy territory. He deliberately placed his fellows in danger and it's his fault they were killed.

If he did desert.
Click to expand...

.....allegedly.
 
mtm1963 said:
lets flip the argument.

so you would rather have Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl stay a prisoner for how long? so you would rather have his family and friends suffer thru not knowing whether he is alive or DEAD for how long?

your post is naive in thinking that these 5 people will make a difference in how many get killed. it wont!!

i place the most value on his life and his well being, the confront his family and friends now have because he is FREE!!

get rid of your politics in evaluating this situation.
Click to expand...

Bergdahl was a deserter that renounced his American citizenship. As far as I'm concerned, we gave the enemy 5 proven murderers for one stateless criminal.
 
mac said:
Bergdahl was a deserter that renounced his American citizenship. As far as I'm concerned, we gave the enemy 5 proven murderers for one stateless criminal.
Click to expand...

I have a feeling this was more of a political "know soldier left behind" kind of thing rather then a balanced trade but I don't know
 
Glen Contrarian said:
Doesn't matter. We swapped North Koreans and Vietnamese for our POW's in the past, and their nations had killed a heck of a lot more of our troops than the Taliban had. We swapped POW's with Germany at the end of WWI. The Union and the South swapped POW's many times. We swapped POW's with England in both the Revolutionary War and the War of 1812. And in ALL these cases, the enemy had killed FAR more of our troops than the Taliban had...and in the cases of the Civil War, the War of 1812, and the Revolutionary War, these presented an existential danger to America itself. And then there's the small matter of Reagan trading 1500 missiles to Iran for American hostages.

So...NO, I can't think of a single other president who would not have authorized the same thing.

On top of all that, we had real concern about his physical health, which seemed to be deteriorating. Again, whatever he did or did not do, it is American tradition that we bring him home - and if we had allowed him to die, then we would have broken that tradition...and of course the Right would have had a field day with that one, too.
Click to expand...
It was a 5 to 1 deal. If you want to look at it in terms of what we received for what we gave up I'll ask just one question.

Who is more likely to suffer consequences in the aftermath of this deal? The Taliban for giving us back our one soldier or us for sending the Taliban the five guys who we held prisoner?

What we gave up was not reasonable especially when you consider that we could have tried to rescue Bergdahl at any time but chose not to because of the "risk". We're risking MORE by setting these guys free.
 
ecofarm said:
The sacrifice was not wasted. It was witnessed and inspires us all.
Click to expand...

In a way, yes. But pissing away their hard fought gains diminishes the accomplishment.
 
jmotivator said:
In a way, yes. But pissing away their hard fought gains diminishes the accomplishment.
Click to expand...

The accomplishment is spiritual not physical.
 
Lursa said:
If he hadnt deserted, men would not have been sent to find him, and died in the process.

Nothing wonky about that logic.
Click to expand...

Whether or not they died in the process is unknown. I've yet to see substantiation. However, there is no direct link of responsibility. Bergdahl was unarmed and he cannot control the Taliban.
 
American said:
Isn't she paid to lie, afterall she works for Obama. :lol:
Click to expand...

Yes but after her experiences she should recommend to her boss that he pick someone else for the task since her credibility is already in the toilet.
 
Glen Contrarian said:
Doesn't matter. We swapped North Koreans and Vietnamese for our POW's in the past, and their nations had killed a heck of a lot more of our troops than the Taliban had. We swapped POW's with Germany at the end of WWI. The Union and the South swapped POW's many times. We swapped POW's with England in both the Revolutionary War and the War of 1812. And in ALL these cases, the enemy had killed FAR more of our troops than the Taliban had...and in the cases of the Civil War, the War of 1812, and the Revolutionary War, these presented an existential danger to America itself. And then there's the small matter of Reagan trading 1500 missiles to Iran for American hostages.

So...NO, I can't think of a single other president who would not have authorized the same thing.

On top of all that, we had real concern about his physical health, which seemed to be deteriorating. Again, whatever he did or did not do, it is American tradition that we bring him home - and if we had allowed him to die, then we would have broken that tradition...and of course the Right would have had a field day with that one, too.
Click to expand...

Glen I think the reason so many are against this deal is the Taliban isn’t looked at as a government or country as England, Germany, the Union or Confederate governments, the North Vietnamese government etc, the Taliban is looked at through most Americans eyes as a terrorist organization, not a country or a government. Most Americans would be shocked that the Taliban has been declared a terrorist organization by the state department if they found out they haven’t. Even the Taliban we captured were classified as detainees and not POW’s. So in reality the swap was one POW for 5 detainees. If the Taliban was a country or a government I do not think you would see such an uproar over this deal. In most people’s minds it was not POW’s that were swapped, but one American hostage for 5 Taliban hard core leaders whom we had detained, detainees.

As for what president would make this deal, just go back two years when Panetta was Secretary of Defense and we were offered the same deal. Panetta turned it down, I assume with this president’s blessing. I doubt Panetta would have made that decision on his own. So your answer is Obama.

As to whether this deal was good or bad, the future will tell. If these five rejoin the fight and go back to killing Americans and our allies or if now the Taliban start kidnapping more Americans for future prisoners trades, we will know it was a bad deal. But if nothing happens, these fears do not come to pass, then it was a good deal. I do not think one can argue today whether this deal is good or bad, no one knows for sure until time passes and we see the repercussions from this deal.

As for me, I want to know what happened in the last two years that would make the president turn down this deal then, but now accept it. I have a sneaky suspicion that there is a whole lot more going on here than just a prisoner swap.
 
Jack Fabulous said:
It was a 5 to 1 deal. If you want to look at it in terms of what we received for what we gave up I'll ask just one question.
Click to expand...

Yeah? And the Israelis swapped 1027 Palestinian POW's for one of theirs.

Who is more likely to suffer consequences in the aftermath of this deal? The Taliban for giving us back our one soldier or us for sending the Taliban the five guys who we held prisoner?
Click to expand...

Y'know, this may come as a shock to you, but what a terrorist does in Afghanistan does NOT present a clear and present danger to America. The ONLY reason we went there in the first place was to get bin Laden. The Taliban - who were NOT terrorists, but who were the GOVERNMENT (if a terrible one) of that nation - were willing to hand him over if he would be tried somewhere other than America. We refused to make that promise, they refused to hand him over, and we invaded. The Taliban were not terrorists...but they were holding a terrorist. And when we landed, the Taliban did exactly what we would have done in their shoes.

In other words, in the Taliban's eyes, WE invaded THEIR nation. In their eyes, they are the patriots, and we're the invaders. They're not attacking us because "they hate freedom" or "because they want to spread Islam". They're attacking us because WE are in THEIR nation. Why the heck do you think that Afghanistan's been called "the graveyard of empires"?

Oh, wait - I forgot - it's verboten on the Right to ever consider that the other guy might actually be trying to do what he thinks is the right thing...everybody who doesn't do what the Right thinks they should do is a socialist/marxist/Nazi/communist (and sometimes Kenyan) terrorist out to destroy America because...satan!

What we gave up was not reasonable especially when you consider that we could have tried to rescue Bergdahl at any time but chose not to because of the "risk". We're risking MORE by setting these guys free.
Click to expand...

Look, if you want to raise hell about creating more terrorists, go hold the guys to account for TORTURING the Iraqi POW's. THAT had to create thousands more insurgents and terrorists...just as if our soldiers had been tortured by and with the approva of, say, the Iranian government, what would we as a nation have done? You know doggone well what we would have done. Yet we expect them to be okay when we torture THEIR people?

We did what we have always done - we brought all our soldiers home. Anything less than that is unacceptable.
 
Perotista said:
Glen I think the reason so many are against this deal is the Taliban isn’t looked at as a government or country as England, Germany, the Union or Confederate governments, the North Vietnamese government etc, the Taliban is looked at through most Americans eyes as a terrorist organization, not a country or a government. Most Americans would be shocked that the Taliban has been declared a terrorist organization by the state department if they found out they haven’t. Even the Taliban we captured were classified as detainees and not POW’s. So in reality the swap was one POW for 5 detainees. If the Taliban was a country or a government I do not think you would see such an uproar over this deal. In most people’s minds it was not POW’s that were swapped, but one American hostage for 5 Taliban hard core leaders whom we had detained, detainees.

As for what president would make this deal, just go back two years when Panetta was Secretary of Defense and we were offered the same deal. Panetta turned it down, I assume with this president’s blessing. I doubt Panetta would have made that decision on his own. So your answer is Obama.

As to whether this deal was good or bad, the future will tell. If these five rejoin the fight and go back to killing Americans and our allies or if now the Taliban start kidnapping more Americans for future prisoners trades, we will know it was a bad deal. But if nothing happens, these fears do not come to pass, then it was a good deal. I do not think one can argue today whether this deal is good or bad, no one knows for sure until time passes and we see the repercussions from this deal.

As for me, I want to know what happened in the last two years that would make the president turn down this deal then, but now accept it. I have a sneaky suspicion that there is a whole lot more going on here than just a prisoner swap.
Click to expand...

Do you know who comprised the government of Afghanistan when we invaded? It was the Taliban. Yes, they were a terrible government...but they were still the government. And they reacted - and are still reacting - as any government would when the nation is invaded. We can call them 'terrorist' all day long, but they WERE the Afghan government when we invaded.

In their eyes, they are patriots...and if you can muster the ability to put yourself in their shoes, to see things the way they do, you can't really blame them. But what they intend to do is of SECONDARY importance - the most important thing to do is to bring all our soldiers home.

Here's something else for you to think about: Iran. They're a terrorist nation full of people who hate America and freedom, right? So...if you were Iranian, what would you think of a nation that deposed your democratically-elected leader (because America wanted her corporations to continue to have access to Iranian oil) and put Shah Reza Pahlavi in his place? That's what we did in the 1950's. If you were Iranian, how long would it take you to "get over" that? And that's not all - during the Iran/Iraq war, yes, we sold stuff to both sides, but Iraq got the lion's share of the aid, including intel and other logistics aid. Millions of Iranians died in that war...and that was less than 30 years ago.

How would you, an Iranian, feel towards America, knowing what we did to them in the 1950's, and how we helped Iraq kill millions of them in the 1980's?

And Americans wonder why they hate us?

One would think that if we had brains, we'd get all our troops out of Afghanistan, and set all the people in Gitmo free (that place is a perversion of American values!).

BTW, one more thing - do you know the real reason why we're in Afghanistan? It has nothing to do with Afghanistan...and everything to do with the nuclear arsenal next door in Pakistan. If you'll recall, just a few years ago an al-Qaeda-led force got within 40 miles of the capital before they were defeated. That's the real reason why we're still there...because if we get all our troops out of there, then al-Qaeda has a logistics base that Pakistan can't get to...and if Pakistan were to fall to al-Qaeda (or a similar group), THEN we're going to have a real problem on our hands.
 
Amadeus said:
Whether or not they died in the process is unknown. I've yet to see substantiation. However, there is no direct link of responsibility. Bergdahl was unarmed and he cannot control the Taliban.
Click to expand...

Who are you looking for substantiation from, if not his fellow soldiers? Susan Rice?
 
Grant said:
Who are you looking for substantiation from, if not his fellow soldiers? Susan Rice?
Click to expand...

Susan Rice has a track record of being up front and honest, providing the best in... bwahahahah!! Sorry... I couldn't do it without.... I mean.... did the CIA edit her talking points again? :mrgreen:
 
Ockham said:
Susan Rice has a track record of being up front and honest, providing the best in... bwahahahah!! Sorry... I couldn't do it without.... I mean.... did the CIA edit her talking points again? :mrgreen:
Click to expand...

Can we believe anything anymore? It's amazing that Obama still has an almost 40%approval rating.

Nonetheless it seems that the Leftists like people who are hyper-critical of their country and their fellow Americans. This Bergdahl fellow may well have a successful political career in front of him.

Old Campfire Stories
They told the stories at times they had personally raped, cut off ears, cut off heads, taped wires from portable telephones to human genitals and turned up the power, cut off limbs, blown up bodies, randomly shot at civilians, razed villages in fashion reminiscent of Genghis Khan, shot cattle and dogs for fun, poisoned food stocks, and generally ravaged the countryside of South Vietnam in addition to the normal ravage of war, and the normal and very particular ravaging which is done by the applied bombing power of this country. - J.Kerry
Click to expand...
 
Grant said:
Can we believe anything anymore? It's amazing that Obama still has an almost 40%approval rating.
Click to expand...
Amazing is an understatement.

Grant said:
Nonetheless it seems that the Leftists like people who are hyper-critical of their country and their fellow Americans. This Bergdahl fellow may well have a successful political career in front of him.

Old Campfire Stories
Click to expand...
Agreed. After he's cleared by the UCMJ to save face for this administration, he has a good shot at a political career --- I agree.
 
Glen Contrarian said:
Yeah? And the Israelis swapped 1027 Palestinian POW's for one of theirs.



Y'know, this may come as a shock to you, but what a terrorist does in Afghanistan does NOT present a clear and present danger to America. The ONLY reason we went there in the first place was to get bin Laden. The Taliban - who were NOT terrorists, but who were the GOVERNMENT (if a terrible one) of that nation - were willing to hand him over if he would be tried somewhere other than America. We refused to make that promise, they refused to hand him over, and we invaded. The Taliban were not terrorists...but they were holding a terrorist. And when we landed, the Taliban did exactly what we would have done in their shoes.

In other words, in the Taliban's eyes, WE invaded THEIR nation. In their eyes, they are the patriots, and we're the invaders. They're not attacking us because "they hate freedom" or "because they want to spread Islam". They're attacking us because WE are in THEIR nation. Why the heck do you think that Afghanistan's been called "the graveyard of empires"?

Oh, wait - I forgot - it's verboten on the Right to ever consider that the other guy might actually be trying to do what he thinks is the right thing...everybody who doesn't do what the Right thinks they should do is a socialist/marxist/Nazi/communist (and sometimes Kenyan) terrorist out to destroy America because...satan!



Look, if you want to raise hell about creating more terrorists, go hold the guys to account for TORTURING the Iraqi POW's. THAT had to create thousands more insurgents and terrorists...just as if our soldiers had been tortured by and with the approva of, say, the Iranian government, what would we as a nation have done? You know doggone well what we would have done. Yet we expect them to be okay when we torture THEIR people?

We did what we have always done - we brought all our soldiers home. Anything less than that is unacceptable.
Click to expand...

Ok...

-You've covered the view that we never should have invaded Afghanistan.

-You've covered the part about the poor Taliban just wanting to defend their homeland.

-You've covered the part about how "they don't hate us for our freedom they just want us to leave them alone".

-You've covered the part about "Obama's a Marxist" claims that I never made.

-You've covered the part about how we torture prisoners at GITMO

...Got it.


Got any more far left partisan drivel you'd like to deposit? I hope not because any more and normal people are going to start to puke all over the place.
 
Samhain said:
What's his twitter handle?
Edit: @CodyFNfootball

Read what he wrote on May 26th:

"Is there any mistreatment worse than sending the US military into a violent and unstable part of the world to conduct a search operation that is in no way connected to the defense of the United States? Feeling sorry for somebody is not a sufficient basis for sending American men and women into harm's way."

Jeez, its like he knew Bergdahl was going to be released and concocted this story! You've cracked the case!
Click to expand...

He's not the only soldier speaking out.

His Sergeant is also speaking out and is saying this guy definitely deserted.

I think the lefts politicizing this issue is disgusting.
 
Glen Contrarian said:
Do you know who comprised the government of Afghanistan when we invaded? It was the Taliban. Yes, they were a terrible government...but they were still the government. And they reacted - and are still reacting - as any government would when the nation is invaded. We can call them 'terrorist' all day long, but they WERE the Afghan government when we invaded.

In their eyes, they are patriots...and if you can muster the ability to put yourself in their shoes, to see things the way they do, you can't really blame them. But what they intend to do is of SECONDARY importance - the most important thing to do is to bring all our soldiers home.

Here's something else for you to think about: Iran. They're a terrorist nation full of people who hate America and freedom, right? So...if you were Iranian, what would you think of a nation that deposed your democratically-elected leader (because America wanted her corporations to continue to have access to Iranian oil) and put Shah Reza Pahlavi in his place? That's what we did in the 1950's. If you were Iranian, how long would it take you to "get over" that? And that's not all - during the Iran/Iraq war, yes, we sold stuff to both sides, but Iraq got the lion's share of the aid, including intel and other logistics aid. Millions of Iranians died in that war...and that was less than 30 years ago.

How would you, an Iranian, feel towards America, knowing what we did to them in the 1950's, and how we helped Iraq kill millions of them in the 1980's?

And Americans wonder why they hate us?

One would think that if we had brains, we'd get all our troops out of Afghanistan, and set all the people in Gitmo free (that place is a perversion of American values!).

BTW, one more thing - do you know the real reason why we're in Afghanistan? It has nothing to do with Afghanistan...and everything to do with the nuclear arsenal next door in Pakistan. If you'll recall, just a few years ago an al-Qaeda-led force got within 40 miles of the capital before they were defeated. That's the real reason why we're still there...because if we get all our troops out of there, then al-Qaeda has a logistics base that Pakistan can't get to...and if Pakistan were to fall to al-Qaeda (or a similar group), THEN we're going to have a real problem on our hands.
Click to expand...

In reality the Taliban were one of 18 tribes which with the help of 3 other tribes were trying to take rule over the remaining 14 tribes. The remaining 14 tribes created the Northern Alliance to fight the Taliban and its other 3 tribes. Afghanistan has had a long history of the different tribes ruling their own little area of Afghanistan with no central government to speak of. Most Afghans never even heard of Kabul let alone been there. The Taliban made Kandahar its home base. The Talban did gain recognition of three states, Pakistan, Saudi Ariba and the United Arab Emirates, no other country or nation recognized Taliban as the government of Afghanistan

Taliban patriots, only to 4 of the 18 tribes, not those of the tribes of the Northern Alliance.

As for Iran, the people there really liked us and we had bases there under the shah. What a lot of Iranians back then didn’t like was the shah trying to westernize their country. Now you take this constructively or continue to rant, it is up to you. But what I did in my previous post is try to explain to you why most Americans do not like this deal and along with the Northern Alliance, 14 tribes who still think the Taliban is a terrorist organization.


Afghanistan under the Taliban and the Northern Alliance.\

afghanistan.jpg
 
Jack Fabulous said:
Ok...

-You've covered the view that we never should have invaded Afghanistan.

-You've covered the part about the poor Taliban just wanting to defend their homeland.

-You've covered the part about how "they don't hate us for our freedom they just want us to leave them alone".

-You've covered the part about "Obama's a Marxist" claims that I never made.

-You've covered the part about how we torture prisoners at GITMO

...Got it.


Got any more far left partisan drivel you'd like to deposit? I hope not because any more and normal people are going to start to puke all over the place.
Click to expand...

Did I say we should never have invaded? Did I say that? No, I did not. What I am TELLING you is that what YOU and the rest of the Right is doing is you aren't even attempting to understand your enemy...

...and Sun Tzu said it best:

If you know others and know yourself, you will not be imperiled in a hundred battles; if you do not know others but know yourself, you win one and lose one; if you do not know others and do not know yourself, you will be imperiled in every single battle.

You must know your enemy. Y'all not only don't know your enemy, you apparently don't even see the need to know your enemy. It's just like when the Muslim scholars tried to explain to Dubya about the Sunni and Shi'a schism (which is like the old Catholic/protestant schism but on steroids), he said something to the effect of "What's the difference - they're all Muslim."

And that, sir, is why we've been in such a mess in the Middle East - y'all haven't even tried to understand your enemy.
 
Perotista said:
In reality the Taliban were one of 18 tribes which with the help of 3 other tribes were trying to take rule over the remaining 14 tribes. The remaining 14 tribes created the Northern Alliance to fight the Taliban and its other 3 tribes. Afghanistan has had a long history of the different tribes ruling their own little area of Afghanistan with no central government to speak of. Most Afghans never even heard of Kabul let alone been there. The Taliban made Kandahar its home base. The Talban did gain recognition of three states, Pakistan, Saudi Ariba and the United Arab Emirates, no other country or nation recognized Taliban as the government of Afghanistan

Taliban patriots, only to 4 of the 18 tribes, not those of the tribes of the Northern Alliance.
Click to expand...

Before we invaded, who were we talking to, to get Afghanistan to turn over bin Laden? The Taliban. Apparently at the time, we thought they were the government for all practical intents and purposes...and so did they.

As for Iran, the people there really liked us and we had bases there under the shah. What a lot of Iranians back then didn’t like was the shah trying to westernize their country. Now you take this constructively or continue to rant, it is up to you. But what I did in my previous post is try to explain to you why most Americans do not like this deal and along with the Northern Alliance, 14 tribes who still think the Taliban is a terrorist organization.
Click to expand...

I'm sure a lot of Iranians did like us...but we'd be fools to assume that most do, especially after what we did in the Iran/Iraq war.

And I really am not concerned about those five Taliban - if there's 14 tribes that really are against them (and are you really sure that's the case, or is that simply what we're told?), then those five shouldn't make much of a difference. What concerns me much more is that we brought our soldier home (even if he's going to be court-martialed). What we did is very much in line with what we've done before, going back all the way to the Revolutionary War.

That, and the fact that the Taliban isn't firmly in charge of an organized nation, complete with uniforms for their soldiers and an official flag and Olympic team and whatnot, does NOT mean we can't swap prisoners with them...especially considering the increasingly decentralized nature of organizations in the modern world. That last phrase is important - these days, it's becoming much easier to have a tightly-run intercontinental organization. Refusing to deal with such on grounds that they don't possess the classical paradigm of a nation is naive.

[/QUOTE]
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom