Page 7 of 9 FirstFirst ... 56789 LastLast
Results 61 to 70 of 90

Thread: Charles Krauthammer backs Bowe Bergdahl deal[W:30]

  1. #61
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Chicago Illinois
    Last Seen
    10-14-15 @ 09:28 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Private
    Posts
    56,981

    Re: Charles Krauthammer backs Bowe Bergdahl deal[W:30]

    Quote Originally Posted by mmi View Post
    Were the Viet Cong "ruling" South Vietnam when they took Americans prisoner in that country and held them as POWs?

    >>You can hang here thinking you know something

    I know something you apparently don't know — how to be logically consistent. It's a concept taught in freshman philosophy classes.

    Well you haven't proven it here it all.....and again you correlation means nothing in comparison with this issue. Bottomline.....whether you like it or not.

  2. #62
    Banned
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    is everything
    Last Seen
    02-19-17 @ 09:50 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    4,810

    Re: Charles Krauthammer backs Bowe Bergdahl deal[W:30]

    Quote Originally Posted by MMC View Post
    Well you haven't proven it here it all
    How are the two different? Did the Viet Cong capture and hold Americans as POWs — yes or no?

  3. #63
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Chicago Illinois
    Last Seen
    10-14-15 @ 09:28 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Private
    Posts
    56,981

    Re: Charles Krauthammer backs Bowe Bergdahl deal[W:30]

    Quote Originally Posted by mmi View Post
    How are the two different? Did the Viet Cong capture and hold Americans as POWs — yes or no?
    The Viet Cong weren't designated as a Terrorist group.....Oh and it was BO and his team that engaged the Afghan Taliban to get in touch with the Haqqani Network. Which puts it all into Perspective concerning negotiating with terrorists. The Taliban had broke off all talks 2 and half years ago.

    Thanks for trying to play anyways. Like I said.....you might want to move to the other threads so you can catch up on things.

  4. #64
    Banned
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    is everything
    Last Seen
    02-19-17 @ 09:50 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    4,810

    Re: Charles Krauthammer backs Bowe Bergdahl deal[W:30]

    Quote Originally Posted by MMC View Post
    The Viet Cong weren't designated as a Terrorist group
    We didn't make such calls back then. Are you saying they didn't act as terrorists? I suppose you'd have to know something about history to answer that, so forget it.

    I take it yer now abandoning yer point about "ruling authority." A group that's not a "ruling authority" can take prisoners in a war. But if it's designated as a terrorist organization, it can't. This is hackery, not logic.

    >>Thanks for trying to play anyways. Like I said.....you might want to move to the other threads so you can catch up on things.

    Yeah, that's what yer doing — playing. War is an activity for adults. I guess that's why you have no understanding of it. It's all just a playground exercise t' you.

  5. #65
    pawn in the game of life
    pragmatic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Last Seen
    10-17-17 @ 05:33 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    1,984

    Re: Charles Krauthammer backs Bowe Bergdahl deal[W:30]

    Quote Originally Posted by mmi View Post
    We didn't make such calls back then. Are you saying they didn't act as terrorists? I suppose you'd have to know something about history to answer that, so forget it.

    I take it yer now abandoning yer point about "ruling authority." A group that's not a "ruling authority" can take prisoners in a war. But if it's designated as a terrorist organization, it can't. This is hackery, not logic.

    >>Thanks for trying to play anyways. Like I said.....you might want to move to the other threads so you can catch up on things.

    Yeah, that's what yer doing — playing. War is an activity for adults. I guess that's why you have no understanding of it. It's all just a playground exercise t' you.
    The argument that you are trying to make really is absurd.

    Just sayin'...


    “Build a man a fire, and he'll be warm for a day. Set a man on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.”

  6. #66
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Chicago Illinois
    Last Seen
    10-14-15 @ 09:28 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Private
    Posts
    56,981

    Re: Charles Krauthammer backs Bowe Bergdahl deal[W:30]

    Quote Originally Posted by mmi View Post
    We didn't make such calls back then. Are you saying they didn't act as terrorists? I suppose you'd have to know something about history to answer that, so forget it.

    I take it yer now abandoning yer point about "ruling authority." A group that's not a "ruling authority" can take prisoners in a war. But if it's designated as a terrorist organization, it can't. This is hackery, not logic.

    >>Thanks for trying to play anyways. Like I said.....you might want to move to the other threads so you can catch up on things.

    Yeah, that's what yer doing — playing. War is an activity for adults. I guess that's why you have no understanding of it. It's all just a playground exercise t' you.


    Bottomline....The Viet Cong weren't classified terrorists. Your deflection and tangential exercise is noted.

    No one said a group that was not a ruling authority couldn't take Prisoners..

    Like I said thanks for playing.....and you do need to catch up with current time and catching that content you know nothing of.

    Oh and thanks for showing a Vietnam Vet......what you think about War and what you think, you know. Especially about the Viet Cong. Your done with this issue here. Despite you not knowing it.

  7. #67
    Banned
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    is everything
    Last Seen
    02-19-17 @ 09:50 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    4,810

    Re: Charles Krauthammer backs Bowe Bergdahl deal[W:30]

    Quote Originally Posted by MMC View Post
    No one said a group that was not a ruling authority couldn't take Prisoners..
    You said:

    Quote Originally Posted by MMC View Post
    The Hammer got this one wrong.....he keeps saying POW exchange. He forgot one major important fact. The Taliban are not a Nation State. Nor are they the ruling governmental authority in Afghanistan.
    How is the fact that the Taliban are not "the ruling governmental authority in Afghanistan" an "important fact"? It sure looks like yer saying that it's important because it makes the exchange of prisoners something that is not a "POW exchange." Yer saying that it's not a POW exchange, at least in part, and in fact in large part since this is an "important fact," because the Taliban are not the ruling authority.

    You try to weasel out of this by qualifying it — saying in another thread that "[t]raditional prisoner swaps do not entail negotiating with a terrorist organization."

    I said I would concede that this was a "non-traditional prisoner swap," non-traditional in the sense that the Taliban are not "the ruling authority." You ignored that.

    You still have said nothing to effectively argue against my point that the Viet Cong, a terrorist group whether you understand that or not, and a group that was not "a ruling authority," captured and held American POWs.

    >>Bottomline....The Viet Cong weren't classified terrorists. Your deflection and tangential exercise is noted.

    "Classified"? The Viet Cong terrorized the population of South Vietnam. You don't know about that, first, because they were finished doing it fifteen years before you were born, but most importantly, because it doesn't play a useful role in yer little right-wing game of trying to score political points against the Obama administration. Try googling "Viet Cong" terrorists. You might learn something.

    Here's something from the first page of that search return, written by a blogger who did not sleepwalk through his history and philosophy classes as you apparently did:

    The GOP talking points in response to the release of Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl in a trade for five former officials of the 1990s Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan (Taliban) focused on a few basic premises. !. You don’t negotiate with terrorists; 2. such a swap would encourage terrorists to capture Americans; 3. these officials are the worst the worst.

    Tagging movements as “terrorist” and then refusing to deal with them is frankly stupid. The Taliban in Afghanistan are not a small terrorist group like, say, the Italian Red Brigades of the 1970s and 1980s. They are guerrillas belonging to a movement that at one point had captured the state and run it. The Taliban are now a guerrilla group, holding territory.

    The US has all along negotiated with the guerrillas it has fought on the battlefield. William Howard Taft (later president) in the Philippines was all for negotiation with Filipinos who rejected US rule, and he created "attraction zones" to win them over. At the conclusion of the Aguinaldo resistance to US occupation in 1902, Teddy Roosevelt declared a general amnesty for the resistance fighters. These resistance fighters had committed some atrocities, including on captured US troops, but Roosevelt just let them walk free. Talk softly, carry a big stick, and let all the terrorists go, seems to have been his motto.

    The US negotiated with the Viet Cong in South Vietnam, who were very much analogous to the Taliban and whom the US would now certainly term "terrorists." In 1973, the US used intermediaries to negotiate with the Viet Cong for release of captured US soldiers at Loc Ninh. Americans on the political right made a huge issue about 1300 US soldiers never having been released by the Viet Cong (only about 400 were), and the shame that these men were left on the battlefield by the Nixon and Ford administrations. Conservatives seem to want to have it both ways. If you negotiate the release of US captives with the enemy you are "negotiating with terrorists."_ If you don’t, then you have left soldiers behind on the battlefield. The fact is that the only way to have freed them was to have offered something for them in detailed negotiations. As for the Viet Cong "terrorists," many of them are in government now and the US has cordial relations with them.

    In the 1980s radical Shiites in Lebanon took American hostages. In order to free them, the Reagan administration not only negotiated with Iran’s Ayatollah Khomeini but actually stole T.O.W. anti-aircraft munitions from Pentagon warehouses and shipped them to Tehran, receiving the money for them in black bank accounts and sending it to right wing death squads in Nicaragua. Khomeini and his government were listed as terrorists by the State Department at the time, and selling weapons to Iran was highly illegal. Not only that, but the US was allied with Iraq at the time, so Reagan screwed over Baghdad this way. Reagan did it, in part to free US hostages in Lebanon (Iran put pressure on its clients for their release).

    As for encouraging groups to take US hostages, if the GOP really is so worried about this outcome they should stop putting the idea in the minds of terrorists by trumpeting it all over the news media. There was no rash of hostage-taking of Americans after Reagan bribed Iran to have them released, so the expectation is ahistorical.

    The Israelis did a prisoner swap, at 1000 to one, for Gilad Shalit, and it hasn’t caused more Israelis to be captured. Why do right wing Americans only hold up Israel as a model when it acts unwisely, rather than when it (as it often does) acts pragmatically?

    In fact, groups like the Taliban are always trying to take US personnel captive. Every day all day. This agreement changes nothing. The reason they only had one American in captivity was not the US policy of not negotiating. It is because guerrilla groups find it difficult to kidnap people from hardened bases and other such relatively secure facilities.

    Finally, as for the 5 Taliban officials being the worst of the worst, that is probably true. However, there are other worst of the worst out there– big Afghan warlords of the 1990s with massive amounts of blood on their hands– whom the US has left alone to operate freely in Afghanistan. Gen. Rashid Dostam was even a vice presidential candidate, and Abu Sayyaf serves in parliament. Look them up. US politicians appear not so interested in who committed massacres but in whether they are presently cooperative with the Karzai government. — Dear GOP: The US has negotiated with Terrorists and Amnestied Them all through History

    >>Oh and thanks for showing a Vietnam Vet......what you think about War and what you think, you know. Especially about the Viet Cong.

    What Vietnam vet? Not you, that's for sure.

    >>Like I said thanks for playing.....and you do need to catch up with current time and catching that content you know nothing of.

    Like I said, this may seem like a game to a dweeb like you, but it's actually a deadly business. Yer focus is on petty politics. The Obama administration is conducting foreign policy in an arena that involves considerations of life and death. It's well out of yer league.

    >>Your done with this issue here. Despite you not knowing it.

    Yer never started. Yer an uninformed blogger with very poor reasoning skills. I'm sure yer employers think yer a bright little boy, but I for one am not at all impressed.

  8. #68
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Chicago Illinois
    Last Seen
    10-14-15 @ 09:28 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Private
    Posts
    56,981

    Re: Charles Krauthammer backs Bowe Bergdahl deal[W:30]

    Quote Originally Posted by mmi View Post
    You said:



    How is the fact that the Taliban are not "the ruling governmental authority in Afghanistan" an "important fact"? It sure looks like yer saying that it's important because it makes the exchange of prisoners something that is not a "POW exchange." Yer saying that it's not a POW exchange, at least in part, and in fact in large part since this is an "important fact," because the Taliban are not the ruling authority.

    You try to weasel out of this by qualifying it — saying in another thread that "[t]raditional prisoner swaps do not entail negotiating with a terrorist organization."

    I said I would concede that this was a "non-traditional prisoner swap," non-traditional in the sense that the Taliban are not "the ruling authority." You ignored that.

    You still have said nothing to effectively argue against my point that the Viet Cong, a terrorist group whether you understand that or not, and a group that was not "a ruling authority," captured and held American POWs.

    >>Bottomline....The Viet Cong weren't classified terrorists. Your deflection and tangential exercise is noted.

    "Classified"? The Viet Cong terrorized the population of South Vietnam. You don't know about that, first, because they were finished doing it fifteen years before you were born, but most importantly, because it doesn't play a useful role in yer little right-wing game of trying to score political points against the Obama administration. Try googling "Viet Cong" terrorists. You might learn something.

    Here's something from the first page of that search return, written by a blogger who did not sleepwalk through his history and philosophy classes as you apparently did:

    The GOP talking points in response to the release of Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl in a trade for five former officials of the 1990s Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan (Taliban) focused on a few basic premises. !. You don’t negotiate with terrorists; 2. such a swap would encourage terrorists to capture Americans; 3. these officials are the worst the worst.

    Tagging movements as “terrorist” and then refusing to deal with them is frankly stupid. The Taliban in Afghanistan are not a small terrorist group like, say, the Italian Red Brigades of the 1970s and 1980s. They are guerrillas belonging to a movement that at one point had captured the state and run it. The Taliban are now a guerrilla group, holding territory.

    The US has all along negotiated with the guerrillas it has fought on the battlefield. William Howard Taft (later president) in the Philippines was all for negotiation with Filipinos who rejected US rule, and he created "attraction zones" to win them over. At the conclusion of the Aguinaldo resistance to US occupation in 1902, Teddy Roosevelt declared a general amnesty for the resistance fighters. These resistance fighters had committed some atrocities, including on captured US troops, but Roosevelt just let them walk free. Talk softly, carry a big stick, and let all the terrorists go, seems to have been his motto.

    The US negotiated with the Viet Cong in South Vietnam, who were very much analogous to the Taliban and whom the US would now certainly term "terrorists." In 1973, the US used intermediaries to negotiate with the Viet Cong for release of captured US soldiers at Loc Ninh. Americans on the political right made a huge issue about 1300 US soldiers never having been released by the Viet Cong (only about 400 were), and the shame that these men were left on the battlefield by the Nixon and Ford administrations. Conservatives seem to want to have it both ways. If you negotiate the release of US captives with the enemy you are "negotiating with terrorists."_ If you don’t, then you have left soldiers behind on the battlefield. The fact is that the only way to have freed them was to have offered something for them in detailed negotiations. As for the Viet Cong "terrorists," many of them are in government now and the US has cordial relations with them.

    In the 1980s radical Shiites in Lebanon took American hostages. In order to free them, the Reagan administration not only negotiated with Iran’s Ayatollah Khomeini but actually stole T.O.W. anti-aircraft munitions from Pentagon warehouses and shipped them to Tehran, receiving the money for them in black bank accounts and sending it to right wing death squads in Nicaragua. Khomeini and his government were listed as terrorists by the State Department at the time, and selling weapons to Iran was highly illegal. Not only that, but the US was allied with Iraq at the time, so Reagan screwed over Baghdad this way. Reagan did it, in part to free US hostages in Lebanon (Iran put pressure on its clients for their release).

    As for encouraging groups to take US hostages, if the GOP really is so worried about this outcome they should stop putting the idea in the minds of terrorists by trumpeting it all over the news media. There was no rash of hostage-taking of Americans after Reagan bribed Iran to have them released, so the expectation is ahistorical.

    The Israelis did a prisoner swap, at 1000 to one, for Gilad Shalit, and it hasn’t caused more Israelis to be captured. Why do right wing Americans only hold up Israel as a model when it acts unwisely, rather than when it (as it often does) acts pragmatically?

    In fact, groups like the Taliban are always trying to take US personnel captive. Every day all day. This agreement changes nothing. The reason they only had one American in captivity was not the US policy of not negotiating. It is because guerrilla groups find it difficult to kidnap people from hardened bases and other such relatively secure facilities.

    Finally, as for the 5 Taliban officials being the worst of the worst, that is probably true. However, there are other worst of the worst out there– big Afghan warlords of the 1990s with massive amounts of blood on their hands– whom the US has left alone to operate freely in Afghanistan. Gen. Rashid Dostam was even a vice presidential candidate, and Abu Sayyaf serves in parliament. Look them up. US politicians appear not so interested in who committed massacres but in whether they are presently cooperative with the Karzai government. — Dear GOP: The US has negotiated with Terrorists and Amnestied Them all through History

    >>Oh and thanks for showing a Vietnam Vet......what you think about War and what you think, you know. Especially about the Viet Cong.

    What Vietnam vet? Not you, that's for sure.

    >>Like I said thanks for playing.....and you do need to catch up with current time and catching that content you know nothing of.

    Like I said, this may seem like a game to a dweeb like you, but it's actually a deadly business. Yer focus is on petty politics. The Obama administration is conducting foreign policy in an arena that involves considerations of life and death. It's well out of yer league.

    >>Your done with this issue here. Despite you not knowing it.

    Yer never started. Yer an uninformed blogger with very poor reasoning skills. I'm sure yer employers think yer a bright little boy, but I for one am not at all impressed.


    Yes that's what I said and those in Washington said it to. As well as the Press. ...... and yes me a Vietnam Vet that will never allow you to paint out what you have no Clue of EVER!!!!! Oh, and your encyclopedia means nothing around here Nube.

    No matter how many times you change tangent nor deflect.

    Bergdahl is a Deserter and the Taliban are terrorists, and the Swap is Illegal.....oh and BO broke the Law. You will just have to live with those mistakes of his. Despite all your defenses.

  9. #69
    Sage


    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    SW Virginia
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 07:44 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    18,265

    Re: Charles Krauthammer backs Bowe Bergdahl deal[W:30]

    Quote Originally Posted by mmi View Post
    You said:



    Like I said, this may seem like a game to a dweeb like you, but it's actually a deadly business. Yer focus is on petty politics. The Obama administration is conducting foreign policy in an arena that involves considerations of life and death. It's well out of yer league.

    >>Your done with this issue here. Despite you not knowing it.

    Yer never started. Yer an uninformed blogger with very poor reasoning skills. I'm sure yer employers think yer a bright little boy, but I for one am not at all impressed.
    The Obama administration doesn't have a clue about anything that doesn't involve domestic political consideration. How you can claim otherwise in the face of too many foreign policy debacles to mention is hilarious.

  10. #70
    Sage

    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 09:01 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    18,285

    Re: Charles Krauthammer backs Bowe Bergdahl deal[W:30]

    Quote Originally Posted by MMC View Post
    Yes that's what I said and those in Washington said it to. As well as the Press. ...... and yes me a Vietnam Vet that will never allow you to paint out what you have no Clue of EVER!!!!! Oh, and your encyclopedia means nothing around here Nube.

    No matter how many times you change tangent nor deflect.

    Bergdahl is a Deserter and the Taliban are terrorists, and the Swap is Illegal.....oh and BO broke the Law. You will just have to live with those mistakes of his. Despite all your defenses.
    M, I know you're just having fun with this "rookie" and I know that you know he's just a small cog in a non-functioning noisy machine that's been reduced to trying to salvage something, anything, from Obama's latest self-inflicted f**kup.

    Just keep that in mind before you spend much more time on it so he can get back to Ronan Farrow for further instructions.

Page 7 of 9 FirstFirst ... 56789 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •