• 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

This is Obama and Code Pink orchestrated .. a tragedy for the USA


IMPEACH NOW

This might be an opportunity to get rid of this dangerous incompetent. Many Democrats in the House and Senate are now willing to openly admit what they always knew, and may be prepared to put the country first.
 
This might be an opportunity to get rid of this dangerous incompetent. Many Democrats in the House and Senate are now willing to openly admit what they always knew, and may be prepared to put the country first.



God Willing.....
 
Actually, as has been shown, it does...:shrug:

Honey? How did you get into Ockham's account? :shock:

What are ya man, my wife? Did you not listen to me sayin I don't agree but the facts on the ground are as they are -- I've shown it as it is...
I don't agree you've shown that it is, that's because I don't buy the premise. So we'll have to agree to disagree there.

Now, why would an RFID chip sound silly, outside of you just seemingly trying to talk past me and create an argument where there is none to be had?
It's silly because a). The Obama administration has not shown foresight to even contemplate such a move b). the amount of technological infrastructure, secrecy, and logistical functionality as well as a very robust trust based relationship with Qatar would be required, as would assets on the ground and to my knowledge little of that exists today and finally c.) since history is the best predictor of future success, human RFID with remote tracking to have been surgically installed in these 5 assets would and could easily be found and would be obvious to the individuals themselves. They wouldn't notice being put to sleep and waking up with a small incision and feel something under their skin? Comon... this isn't a James Bond movie this is reality.

We have the logistics to stick a RFID in our dogs but not people? Are you serious?
Yep serious.

Are you unaware of the technology that's out there? Of DARPA? Of Regina Dugan? This isn't conspiracy theory BS man, these people/things are real, and they are really promoting it...If they already are in the initial phases of marketing it for civilian use you can bet your Aunt Sally that it's been in use militarily.
Yep I'm aware and for the reasons I've already identified, it's ludicrous to imagine these 5 guys have RFID's installed in them without them knowing it, that Qatar has the infrastructure or relationship with the US to track such a thing remotely, and that assets on the ground exist or would be used for the next year to track these guys 24x7x365. Ludicrous.

Youtube any interview with her and you'll see it is more than "logistically possible".
It's horse****. Youtube is not the arbiter of truth - as the guys setting their farts on fire would attest.

Now, AS I SAID, did he or anyone of the dimwits have presence of mind or no?

You say no, and I AM LIKELY TO AGREE.

Presence of mind aside, it's still ludicrous given this is Qatar we're talking about. Sorry I want to get on board with your view but my common sense just won't let me.
 
10426777_810358808977417_8982362957304895314_n.jpg

Perhaps we could have gotten the 72 year old grandfather back instead and move Bergdahl to the bottom of the list. Monday morning quarterbacking - absolutely. But then again, these Harvard and Yale folks in the White House are supposed to be a lot smarter than us regular yokels. This debacle pretty much debunks that though.
 
your question a red herring and you know it.




how can you elevate these 5 individuals to the status of those who didn't just kill 100's or even 1000's to those who killed millions. ridiculous.



questions are good and no one is asking you to shut up.



sorry but that's simply isn't true.



100's and 100's of soldiers died doing what they were asked to do in this war.

The numbers are irrelevant.
 
Ask Senator McCain how he feels now about taking extra beatings in Vietnam, when they were ready to let him go; but he wasn't leaving till his men were freed. And then this! Obama trades five bars of gold for a bar of lead.

I am well aware of McCain's story...but you cannot hold every POW to McCain's standard.

As I've pointed out already - this is NOT about Bergdahl. He is INNOCENT until proven otherwise in a court of law, as Gen. Stanley McChrystal (whom you must agree is no fan of the Obama administration) points out:

Retired Gen. Stanley McChrystal on Wednesday urged Army Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl’s critics not to “judge” him until all the facts are in and sharply defended the extensive and risky search efforts that claimed the lives of some of his fellow soldiers.

“We did a huge number of operations to try to stop the Taliban from being able to move him across the border into Pakistan,” McChrystal told Yahoo News in an exclusive interview. “And we made a great effort and put a lot of people at risk in doing that, but that’s what you should do. That’s what soldiers do for each other.”

Bergdahl’s release as part of a prisoner swap involving five Taliban commanders has drawn angry scrutiny in Congress. It has also prompted some of his former comrades in arms to paint him as a deserter unworthy of the frantic search efforts on his behalf.

McChrystal, who commanded the war effort in Afghanistan at the time of Bergdahl’s June 2009 vanishing, declined to shed any more light on the circumstances of his disappearance.

“We’re going to have to wait and talk to Sgt. Bergdahl now and get his side of the story,” he said. “One of the great things about America is we should not judge until we know the facts. And after we know the facts, then we should make a mature judgment on how we should handle it.”

Asked whether he would have made the same prisoner swap, McChrystal replied: “We don’t leave Americans behind. That’s unequivocal.”


It's NOT about Bergdahl - it's about proving to our men and women in uniform that we WILL NOT leave Americans behind, even if it means putting more people at risk in order to get them.

But I suppose now the Right will declare that McChrystal's some kind of liberal stooge and Obama apologist....
 
Perhaps we could have gotten the 72 year old grandfather back instead and move Bergdahl to the bottom of the list. Monday morning quarterbacking - absolutely. But then again, these Harvard and Yale folks in the White House are supposed to be a lot smarter than us regular yokels. This debacle pretty much debunks that though.

The US could have behaved more honorably had they freed the Doctor who led them to bin Laden from that Pakistani prison, or the American marine being held in a Tia Juana jail. No prisoner exchange from Gitmo would be required in either case. Just economic threats.

Has anyone else ever wondered just whose side this guy is on?
 
If you had continued to read the thread you would see that I concurred with the six number. You would also see that I was reporting what I heard on the radio and was not playing "loose and fancy free" with the facts. The facts remain that we don't know what Bergdahl's status was or is as I also subsequently posted. Nor did I make it a partisan issue as your post does. It seems just as many Democrats are asking the same questions as the Republicans are on this one. But don't let facts get in the way of making something partisan that shouldn't be.

I am glad you came around once educated on the correct number. My issue was your posting of a bad number in the first place.

Building an argument based upon wrong facts makes you a purveyor of gossip. Its only intent is to imflame people's angst. (Ya worked their panties into a bunch based upon untruths). This business about some radio guy who's name you can not recall is lame and does not excuse the fact that you posted it, so you own it. Not checking out things you post is intellectually dishonest. In fact, disregard for the truth can be an element in adjudging fraud. I will take those that are foot loose and fancy free with the facts to task. I love honest debate; I loath debate based upon dishonest premises and facts, especially when the poster doesn't care if his/her facts are correct (including being too lazy to offer cites to back up assertions).

... as you making it political, I think you were the one that suggested the prisoner swap was designed to be a head fake (was political). I answered by challenge that questioned why he would want to draw attention away from this events as they, to many, just make the Cons look petty and foolish. Probably the wrong time to make that argument. I should have just attacked the absurdity and politics of your assertion.
 
I am glad you came around once educated on the correct number. My issue was your posting of a bad number in the first place.

Building an argument based upon wrong facts makes you a purveyor of gossip. Its only intent is to imflame people's angst. (Ya worked their panties into a bunch based upon untruths). This business about some radio guy who's name you can not recall is lame and does not excuse the fact that you posted it, so you own it. Not checking out things you post is intellectually dishonest. In fact, disregard for the truth can be an element in adjudging fraud. I will take those that are foot loose and fancy free with the facts to task. I love honest debate; I loath debate based upon dishonest premises and facts, especially when the poster doesn't care if his/her facts are correct (including being too lazy to offer cites to back up assertions).

... as you making it political, I think you were the one that suggested the prisoner swap was designed to be a head fake (was political). I answered by challenge that questioned why he would want to draw attention away from this events as they, to many, just make the Cons look petty and foolish. Probably the wrong time to make that argument. I should have just attacked the absurdity and politics of your assertion.

Well if repeating what I heard on the radio makes me a 'purveyor of gossip', then I have been guilty of that for a very long time and will absolutely continue to be so. On the other hand, I think those who automatically question the motives of 'cons' who question the party line, the politically correct version, or the assigned talking points can look pretty petty and foolish themselves.
 
I don't agree you've shown that it is, that's because I don't buy the premise. So we'll have to agree to disagree there.

It's silly because a). The Obama administration has not shown foresight to even contemplate such a move b). the amount of technological infrastructure, secrecy, and logistical functionality as well as a very robust trust based relationship with Qatar would be required, as would assets on the ground and to my knowledge little of that exists today and finally c.) since history is the best predictor of future success, human RFID with remote tracking to have been surgically installed in these 5 assets would and could easily be found and would be obvious to the individuals themselves. They wouldn't notice being put to sleep and waking up with a small incision and feel something under their skin? Comon... this isn't a James Bond movie this is reality.

Yep serious.

Yep I'm aware and for the reasons I've already identified, it's ludicrous to imagine these 5 guys have RFID's installed in them without them knowing it, that Qatar has the infrastructure or relationship with the US to track such a thing remotely, and that assets on the ground exist or would be used for the next year to track these guys 24x7x365. Ludicrous.

It's horse****. Youtube is not the arbiter of truth - as the guys setting their farts on fire would attest.



Presence of mind aside, it's still ludicrous given this is Qatar we're talking about. Sorry I want to get on board with your view but my common sense just won't let me.

Have a good day...
 
I am well aware of McCain's story...but you cannot hold every POW to McCain's standard.

As I've pointed out already - this is NOT about Bergdahl. He is INNOCENT until proven otherwise in a court of law, as Gen. Stanley McChrystal (whom you must agree is no fan of the Obama administration) points out:

Retired Gen. Stanley McChrystal on Wednesday urged Army Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl’s critics not to “judge” him until all the facts are in and sharply defended the extensive and risky search efforts that claimed the lives of some of his fellow soldiers.

“We did a huge number of operations to try to stop the Taliban from being able to move him across the border into Pakistan,” McChrystal told Yahoo News in an exclusive interview. “And we made a great effort and put a lot of people at risk in doing that, but that’s what you should do. That’s what soldiers do for each other.”

Bergdahl’s release as part of a prisoner swap involving five Taliban commanders has drawn angry scrutiny in Congress. It has also prompted some of his former comrades in arms to paint him as a deserter unworthy of the frantic search efforts on his behalf.

McChrystal, who commanded the war effort in Afghanistan at the time of Bergdahl’s June 2009 vanishing, declined to shed any more light on the circumstances of his disappearance.

“We’re going to have to wait and talk to Sgt. Bergdahl now and get his side of the story,” he said. “One of the great things about America is we should not judge until we know the facts. And after we know the facts, then we should make a mature judgment on how we should handle it.”

Asked whether he would have made the same prisoner swap, McChrystal replied: “We don’t leave Americans behind. That’s unequivocal.”


It's NOT about Bergdahl - it's about proving to our men and women in uniform that we WILL NOT leave Americans behind, even if it means putting more people at risk in order to get them.

But I suppose now the Right will declare that McChrystal's some kind of liberal stooge and Obama apologist....

If Bergdahl hadn't walked from his post, would those extra operations have been necessary?

Oh BTW......
http://time.com/2826534/bowe-bergdahl-taliban-captors/
 
Have a good day...

Can you point to one area where the government as RFID a human prisoner or terrorist without their knowledge and we tracked them successfully - anywhere at any time? This would be a first and truly remarkable if accomplished in Qatar. Have a nice night.
 
Can you point to one area where the government as RFID a human prisoner or terrorist without their knowledge and we tracked them successfully - anywhere at any time? This would be a first and truly remarkable if accomplished in Qatar. Have a nice night.

I said good day...
 
If Bergdahl hadn't walked from his post, would those extra operations have been necessary?

Oh BTW......
Bowe Bergdahl: Taliban Captors Speak to TIME - TIME

Did you not see what I wrote? This is NOT about Bergdahl...and that's pretty much what Gen. McChrystal said, too. We don't say, "Well, is this soldier worth bringing home?" We say, "We WILL bring this soldier home." Why? Because he's a soldier. It does not matter what he did or did not do - we bring them home.

It was not about what Bergdahl did or did not do. What about that do you not get?

Oh, wait, I forgot - Obama had something to do with it, therefore the Right must oppose it to the bitter end. And we all know what the Right would have said if we'd refused to get him and let him die there. Such vast, vast hypocrisy on the Right. This is one of the major reasons I left the GOP back in the early 1990's - I saw where it was going, and I was right. What passes for conservatives today don't have a clue as to what conservatives really were...which is why Bob Dole himself said that it was very unlikely that he, Bush 41, and Reagan could be elected today.
 
Did you not see what I wrote? This is NOT about Bergdahl...and that's pretty much what Gen. McChrystal said, too. We don't say, "Well, is this soldier worth bringing home?" We say, "We WILL bring this soldier home." Why? Because he's a soldier. It does not matter what he did or did not do - we bring them home.

It was not about what Bergdahl did or did not do. What about that do you not get?

Oh, wait, I forgot - Obama had something to do with it, therefore the Right must oppose it to the bitter end. And we all know what the Right would have said if we'd refused to get him and let him die there. Such vast, vast hypocrisy on the Right. This is one of the major reasons I left the GOP back in the early 1990's - I saw where it was going, and I was right. What passes for conservatives today don't have a clue as to what conservatives really were...which is why Bob Dole himself said that it was very unlikely that he, Bush 41, and Reagan could be elected today.

Yes we should bring him home... last.
 
The numbers are irrelevant.

when we are talking about 1 soldier being released, 5 taliban being released, 6 soldiers who were killed searching for Bowe Bergdahl and then comparing the 5 taliban released as being like the killer of millions...............hitler, stalin and mao............ oh yes numbers matter.

we are talking about 5 people released.

a family has their son back.......... SAFE!!
 
when we are talking about 1 soldier being released, 5 taliban being released, 6 soldiers who were killed searching for Bowe Bergdahl and then comparing the 5 taliban released as being like the killer of millions...............hitler, stalin and mao............ oh yes numbers matter.

we are talking about 5 people released.

a family has their son back.......... SAFE!!

Picture this: you're a general, and you're about to go to war. The morale of your troops is as always a crucial factor. Do you want your troops to know that if something happens to them, the Army will never give up on finding you and bringing you home no matter what? Or do you want your troops to know that if they decide they don't like you for whatever reason, you'll be left to rot? Which is better for morale?

This, sir, is why bringing Bergdahl home was never about Bergdahl himself, but about showing all our troops that yes, America WILL bring you home, no matter what. If you can't see the importance of that, perhaps you should go study military history, beginning with the Eastern Front during WWII.

And remember, even in the military we are INNOCENT until proven guilty.
 
That would be up to the Army.
I don't think the Army made the decision to bring Bergdahl home I think it was the President and the State Department.
BTW, the last one brought home from Vietnam was also accused of desertion and collaboration. Just a thought.
Fact of the matter is, every soldier has a breaking point. The question is what information is provided and when. There's a difference between voluntary collaboration and breaking under torture.
 
Picture this: you're a general, and you're about to go to war. The morale of your troops is as always a crucial factor. Do you want your troops to know that if something happens to them, the Army will never give up on finding you and bringing you home no matter what? Or do you want your troops to know that if they decide they don't like you for whatever reason, you'll be left to rot? Which is better for morale?

This, sir, is why bringing Bergdahl home was never about Bergdahl himself, but about showing all our troops that yes, America WILL bring you home, no matter what. If you can't see the importance of that, perhaps you should go study military history, beginning with the Eastern Front during WWII.

And remember, even in the military we are INNOCENT until proven guilty.

a person in the military knows that's true and its their expectation that will happen - they will not give up and they will do everything to find them.

as for the last 3(numbers) sentences in your post, all assumptions about me coming from you............ as in NOT based on anything i said specifically about Berdahl.
 
I don't think the Army made the decision to bring Bergdahl home I think it was the President and the State Department.

And if the Army feels the need to ask the president first, they'll do just that. What's more, in the beginning, the search for Bergdahl was directed by the Army - no outside 'permission' needed. But when it became a matter of our intelligence services having to be the ones to find Bergdahl, they can't just go tell the Army, "There he is, go get him." It becomes a much bigger thing, a matter to be taken up at the cabinet level.

Fact of the matter is, every soldier has a breaking point. The question is what information is provided and when. There's a difference between voluntary collaboration and breaking under torture.

Do we know why Bergdahl did what he did, or what he was subjected to? No. "Innocent till proven guilty". If the Army finds him guilty and sends him off to Leavenworth, that's fine. But we bring our soldiers home.
 
Back
Top Bottom