• 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!

Charles Krauthammer backs Bowe Bergdahl deal[W:30]

Well, I must apologize for my last post. I somehow got confused this morning and decided that yer OP in another thread:

http://www.debatepolitics.com/break...ows-resume-violent-jihad-against-america.html

wasn't merely a regurgitation of some garbage written by little Guy Benson over at Townhall.com. I got the idea that you were Guy Benson.

This is an example of how Google can mess you up. I noticed the expression "contradictory parsing" in that OP. I'm a professional copyeditor and it struck me as a bizarre collocation, so I searched on it. If you leave out a few quirky pages, it's found twice: in Benson's blog post and in yer OP. I couldn't understand why Benson would be spending his time posting so much in this forum, but then I noticed he went to Northwestern and that yer located in Chicago. I put two and two together and got five.

Anyway, we're obviously never going to agree on this. But yer doing yerself a disservice listening to nerdy little you-know-whats like Guy Benson. "Contradictory parsing"? What the hell is that? He can't think and he can't write. His mind works in one direction: political hackery. He doesn't care about men like you fighting in the field to defend the lives and interests of innocent civilians. He's a DC nerd hired to play games deceiving people.

Bergdahl comes across to me as a flake. I think we can agree he didn't belong in that forward post with other men depending on him in a very high-risk environment. But in the end, I see him as a rather sad figure, someone who didn't fit in.

Did you want us to hold these militants, these terrorist killers, down there in Cuba forever? It's a war. It's wrapping up. Do you want us to fight it for another thirteen years?

Search engines are not always your friend. We are wrapping the war up in Afghanistan. The Taliban, AQ and the others aren't. Just a quick glance around the globe should convince you. I doubt we'll be done fighting these guys for at least a generation yet. It's a sad reality most of us would prefer to avoid, but ignoring it is simply too costly. Some of us have children we'd like to see living in a better world.
 
you can play on for the rest of us

Nah, I'll leave you to yer confusion. But with a sad heart. Yer not the problem; yer just a victim.
 
Nah, I'll leave you to yer confusion. But with a sad heart. Yer not the problem; yer just a victim.

Nah, you just showed all here what you know about a victim. :lamo

0-2 now.....and you are barely even making the rounds. Guess there will the third soon enough. :lol:
 
We are wrapping the war up in Afghanistan. The Taliban, AQ and the others aren't. Just a quick glance around the globe should convince you. I doubt we'll be done fighting these guys for at least a generation yet. It's a sad reality most of us would prefer to avoid, but ignoring it is simply too costly. Some of us have children we'd like to see living in a better world.

Yeah, a very tricky business, no doubt about that. But I'm not convinced that a land war in south Asia, particularly against these buggers, is gonna do us any good. I figure this Arab Spring movement and its implications for other Islamic countries, while it does have dangerous implications, is the best chance we have to get things settled down in the medium and long term.

Why is Vietnam no longer a problem? Because we got our military forces out of there and allowed the government to evolve into what you've also got in other formerly communist nations like China and Russia — a rather brutal oligarchy that is content to build wealth through unregulated capitalism.

Who knows how things will evolve in Egypt and Iraq and Pakistan and some of these other places? I'd say we should do what we can to help them establish a political and legal framework that can raise their per capita incomes and education and healthcare, etc, out of the Middle Ages. Then they can buy our financial services and high-tech manufacturing and we can all get along a little better.

Nah, you just showed all here what you know about a victim.

And what is that?
 
Yeah, a very tricky business, no doubt about that. But I'm not convinced that a land war in south Asia, particularly against these buggers, is gonna do us any good. I figure this Arab Spring movement and its implications for other Islamic countries, while it does have dangerous implications, is the best chance we have to get things settled down in the medium and long term.

Why is Vietnam no longer a problem? Because we got our military forces out of there and allowed the government to evolve into what you've also got in other formerly communist nations like China and Russia — a rather brutal oligarchy that is content to build wealth through unregulated capitalism.

Who knows how things will evolve in Egypt and Iraq and Pakistan and some of these other places? I'd say we should do what we can to help them establish a political and legal framework that can raise their per capita incomes and education and healthcare, etc, out of the Middle Ages. Then they can buy our financial services and high-tech manufacturing and we can all get along a little better.

It would be wise of us to avoid foreign entanglements entered with domestics politics as the driving feature. It's always a consideration, but it shouldn't be the leading one at all. To do so speaks of weak and morally questionable leadership.
 
foreign entanglements entered with domestics politics as the driving feature … weak and morally questionable leadership.

Well, this idea that Obama's foreign policy has "domestics politics as the driving feature" is, as far as I'm concerned, just something dreamed up by his critics. As you say, it's by necessity a consideration. You can't lead if people aren't willing to follow. We may agree that that's a good thing — an important check on presidential power and action.

The mindless, anti-Obama robots at Faux and other right-wing media outlets claim the The Obama Doctrine is Lead From Behind. As far as I know, that was employed in one setting — Libya. I'd say we got a pretty good cost/benefit out of that. The "he's just a golf-playing, fundraising incompetent" chorus screams "Benghazi!" I say yeah, Benghazi, an important city where thousands of innocent civilians would have been slaughtered if NATO hadn't run air strikes against loyalist armour and artillery that were moving on it.

I might agree that the Red Line thing with Syria was kinda clumsy, but we had to do something, right? And would we have been better off going after Assad at that time? Seems t' me Syria is a real tough nut. I agreed with McCain very early on for carefully selected targeting of Assad's air defence assets in response to his attacks on civilian populations. But what do I know about it? Actions like that can certainly escalate into big trouble.

In my view, we're doing what we can with Iran. The new government there could be a big plus. I'd say we made it more likely that they would come to power by not being too hardline.

Ukraine? Very difficult. Seems clear t' me that the rest of Eastern Europe is safe. Putin is a pain in the ass, but may in the end be semi-reasonable if only for his own domestic economic and political limitations.

Egypt and Pakistan are major concerns. I do NOT think that a lot of happy talk about "projecting force around the world" is gonna help. The idea that "America is retreating from the world, creating a vacuum that will be filled by evil" sounds like foolish rhetoric t' me.

The Cold War is over. We won. I'd say that was pretty much an inevitability. I think we can win the fight to limit terrorism (good luck trying to end it) if we play our cards right. I do agree with Obama, and with the very much unfairly maligned James Earl Carter, that moral leadership is important.

You referenced "moral leadership" yerself. How is Obama falling short on that? How is he being "weak"?
 
Last edited:
Well, this idea that Obama's foreign policy has "domestics politics as the driving feature" is, as far as I'm concerned, just something dreamed up by his critics. As you say, it's by necessity a consideration. You can't lead if people aren't willing to follow. We may agree that that's a good thing — an important check on presidential power and action.

The mindless, anti-Obama robots at Faux and other right-wing media outlets claim the The Obama Doctrine is Lead From Behind. As far as I know, that was employed in one setting — Libya. I'd say we got a pretty good cost/benefit out of that. The "he's just a golf-playing, fundraising incompetent" chorus screams "Benghazi!" I say yeah, Benghazi, an important city where thousands of innocent civilians would have been slaughtered if NATO hadn't run air strikes against loyalist armour and artillery that were moving on it.

I might agree that the Red Line thing with Syria was kinda clumsy, but we had to do something, right? And would we have been better off going after Assad at that time? Seems t' me Syria is a real tough nut. I agreed with McCain very early on for carefully selected targeting of Assad's air defence assets in response to his attacks on civilian populations. But what do I know about it? Actions like that can certainly escalate into big trouble.

In my view, we're doing what we can with Iran. The new government there could be a big plus. I'd say we made it more likely that they would come to power by not being too hardline.

Ukraine? Very difficult. Seems clear t' me that the rest of Eastern Europe is safe. Putin is a pain in the ass, but may in the end be semi-reasonable if only for his own domestic economic and political limitations.

Egypt and Pakistan are major concerns. I do NOT think that a lot of happy talk about "projecting force around the world" is gonna help. The idea that "America is retreating from the world, creating a vacuum that will be filled by evil" sounds like foolish rhetoric t' me.

The Cold War is over. We won. I'd say that was pretty much an inevitability. I think we can win the fight to limit terrorism (good luck trying to end it) if we play our cards right. I do agree with Obama, and with the very much unfairly maligned James Earl Carter, that moral leadership is important.

You referenced "moral leadership" yerself. How is Obama falling short on that? How is he being "weak"?

Gotta run. I'll be back later. Now, don't go interpreting this as a non-response, as many do. RL intervenes, and that's where I live.
 
"Charles Krauthammer"s real name is "Shekky Kraummer" or something. I wonder why he selected "Krauthammer" for his new name......
Fox News makes me want to vomit the way they worship him like he's some kind of an Einstein genius or something. And all you Foxnews viewers believe everything he says without question.

"Krauthammer" is nothing but a Pro-Israel (which is why he supports the exchange because Israel does it) neocon warmonger just like the rest of the Foxnews "Contributors".

I'm amazed that people still post that lie.
 
SHOCKER!!! Charles Krauthammer backs Bowe Bergdahl deal - Kendall Breitman - POLITICO.com

Charles Krauthammer says he supports President Barack Obama’s deal to bring Army Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl home.
“Had the choice been mine I would have made the same choice,” Krauthammer told Fox News’ “Special Report” on Wednesday. “It’s a difficult decision, and I would not attack those who have done otherwise.”




Read more: Charles Krauthammer backs Bowe Bergdahl deal - Kendall Breitman - POLITICO.com

Why do you think it's a shocker?
 
The reason that "Charles Krauthammer" supports the exchange is because Israel exchanges prisoners. And as a jew who is rabidly supportive of Israel in every utterance and every writing, and as someone who has won the "Guardian of Zion" award given by the "Bar-llan University" in Tel Aviv, he would never dare take a position that's contrary to his beloved Israel, ever.
 
The Viet Cong weren't designated as a Terrorist group

.... yes... because official designation of such groups only began in 1997. Foreign Terrorist Organizations :roll:

However, they (the Vietcong) were referred to as such by US officials/media/Vietnamese sources on a number of occasions. I'm not really sure what you're arguing - that the US not fighting a war against the Taliban, that the Taliban aren't in bed with Al-Qaeda and such groups or that the Taliban being designated or not being designated as terrorists makes an ounce of difference as to whether or not soldiers captured by them are POWs. Your focus on platitudes is worrying. We're fighting a war against Islamists in Afghanistan. Most of these Islamists are members of the Taliban. People captured by them are POWs.
 
.... yes... because official designation of such groups only began in 1997. Foreign Terrorist Organizations :roll:

However, they (the Vietcong) were referred to as such by US officials/media/Vietnamese sources on a number of occasions. I'm not really sure what you're arguing - that the US not fighting a war against the Taliban, that the Taliban aren't in bed with Al-Qaeda and such groups or that the Taliban being designated or not being designated as terrorists makes an ounce of difference as to whether or not soldiers captured by them are POWs. Your focus on platitudes is worrying. We're fighting a war against Islamists in Afghanistan. Most of these Islamists are members of the Taliban. People captured by them are POWs.

That's Right......that's when they did come up with the designation

Perhaps you should hang out more in International Affairs and dealing with Foreign Policy. This way you wont be confused about who you are talkin about. Or what I know of them . Seems.....I am up on most of what is out there and being presented..

Thanks for the Info on NAM.....although I am sure where I lost my soul, I pretty much know all about it.
 
Back
Top Bottom