• 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

mac said:
They fired on Coalition Aircraft enforcing the no-fly zone, they attempted assassination of a US President, denied access to weapons inspectors, etc etc. Regardless, a "clear and present danger" is far from required....though Saddam was clearly a threat.
Click to expand...

"attempted assassination of a US president"? Reference, please.

And firing on a coalition aircraft in that nation's airspace does not comprise a clear and present danger to other nations.

FYI, Saddam was useful, if Dubya had had the sense to see it. He provided a counterweight to Iran...and when Saddam was gone, guess who took over by proxy in Iraq? It was the real winner of the Iraq war: Iran.

Y'all insisted on invading Iraq...and Iran became all the more powerful because of it.
 
Glen Contrarian said:
Last I recall, having CIA agents in a nation does NOT equate to an invasion of that nation.
Click to expand...
How about military choppers and Navy fighters?

Glen Contrarian said:
"Boots on the ground" doesn't apply to CIA agents.
Click to expand...
:lamo I love watching liberals cherry pick to fit their ideology. Your statement doesn't disappoint!

Glen Contrarian said:
To claim otherwise doesn't reflect well on you in front of the other veterans here.
Click to expand...
You think it concerns me how well I reflect on other veterans on DP?
smiley5621.gif
 
mac said:
I am a retired Senior Chief. I am not declaring him guilty. I am saying he's a deserter, and should go to trial, guy. :shrug: In the meantime, guy, the US president traded 5 generals for 1 private...a deserter...before the cessation of hostilities. That is aiding and abetting the enemy, guy.



Listen, guy, this isn't a court of law, guy, this is a debate forum, guy, and the colonel, guy, is towing the party line, guy, because his future is directly tied to the presidents feelings, guy. Those junior enlisted personnel actually served with him, guy, actually know him, guy, I trust them far more than that colonel.....guy.
Click to expand...

Okay, GUY, listen up. If you're a retired senior chief - and I'm taking you at your word that you are - then you KNOW as well as I do that Bergdahl is INNOCENT until he is proven guilty in a court of law...and because of that it was our DUTY to bring him home by whatever means we had at hand. We could swap the five Taliban for him...or we could have risked more lives of Special Forces to get him. But we needed to bring him home. Even GEN McChrystal said the same thing...and you know he's no fan of Obama.

What's really stupid about this whole brouhaha, Senior, is that nobody on the Right seems to acknowledge the obvious, that if Obama brought him home, Obama's hated for it...but if Obama had left him there, Obama would be hated for that, too. It did not matter what Obama did, he'd be castigated for it by the Right, and all the conservative talking heads would be claiming how terrible/horrible/tyrannical/unAmerican Obama is for doing it, whatever it may be. And I would bet my bottom dollar that most of you know in your hearts that this is absolutely the case, that it simply didn't matter what Obama did about Bergahl, he'd still be hated for it by the Right. It's all politics, period, end of story.
 
Ockham said:
How about military choppers and Navy fighters?
Click to expand...

You can't invade without boots on the ground. You can't occupy a place without boots on the ground. You can't take over a nation without boots on the ground.

:lamo I love watching liberals cherry pick to fit their ideology. Your statement doesn't disappoint!

You think it concerns me how well I reflect on other veterans on DP?
smiley5621.gif
Click to expand...

Apparently not, because each and every one of them knows how silly your argument is that we "invaded" Libya.
 
Glen Contrarian said:
You can't invade without boots on the ground. You can't occupy a place without boots on the ground. You can't take over a nation without boots on the ground.
Click to expand...
And the CIA was on the ground.

Glen Contrarian said:
Apparently not, because each and every one of them knows how silly your argument is that we "invaded" Libya.
Click to expand...
What's sillier is you sitting here denying it. You're entitled to live in your own reality; it's still a free country.
 
ecofarm said:
Asks a Truther. If that isn't irony, I dunno what is.

My claim is backed by facts and statements from Saddam himself.




I can't believe a Truther would take a shot at me like that. Sometimes internet debate seems like a total waste. I wonder if I'd be better off buying a few cats.
Click to expand...

I guess that means the answer is 'yes'? I do hope that Curveball is not your favorite informant...:lol:
 
Glen Contrarian said:
"attempted assassination of a US president"? Reference, please.
Click to expand...

I'm not terribly surprised that you are unfamiliar with the attempted assassination of GHWB in Kuwait.

And firing on a coalition aircraft in that nation's airspace does not comprise a clear and present danger to other nations.
Click to expand...

...in violation of UN sanctions. You really need to get a grasp.

FYI, Saddam was useful, if Dubya had had the sense to see it. He provided a counterweight to Iran...and when Saddam was gone, guess who took over by proxy in Iraq? It was the real winner of the Iraq war: Iran.
Click to expand...

That counterweight to Iran is responsible for hundreds of thousands of deaths, mostly using material we supplied him in order to "counterweight" Iran. There comes a time when enough is enough. BTW, since your grasp on the history of the region is now suspect, are you aware of Desert Fox and the liberate Iraq act?

Y'all insisted on invading Iraq...and Iran became all the more powerful because of it.
Click to expand...

and Billary voted for it.
 
Last edited:
Glen Contrarian said:
Okay, GUY, listen up. If you're a retired senior chief - and I'm taking you at your word that you are - then you KNOW as well as I do that Bergdahl is INNOCENT until he is proven guilty in a court of law...and because of that it was our DUTY to bring him home by whatever means we had at hand. We could swap the five Taliban for him...or we could have risked more lives of Special Forces to get him. But we needed to bring him home. Even GEN McChrystal said the same thing...and you know he's no fan of Obama.
Click to expand...

Listen here, guy, I don't give a rat's ass if you take me at my word or not. Nor do I give a rat's ass that he is legally innocent...at the moment. He's a deserter, and certainly not worth the risk of turning over 5 exceedingly bad actors, who most likely will cause more US and Afghani deaths. In violation of US law, and international law...considering two of them were under indictment for crimes against humanity.

What's really stupid about this whole brouhaha, Senior, is that nobody on the Right seems to acknowledge the obvious, that if Obama brought him home, Obama's hated for it...but if Obama had left him there, Obama would be hated for that, too. It did not matter what Obama did, he'd be castigated for it by the Right, and all the conservative talking heads would be claiming how terrible/horrible/tyrannical/unAmerican Obama is for doing it, whatever it may be. And I would bet my bottom dollar that most of you know in your hearts that this is absolutely the case, that it simply didn't matter what Obama did about Bergahl, he'd still be hated for it by the Right. It's all politics, period, end of story.
Click to expand...

What's really stupid, Shipmate, is that this occurred. No-one was traded for Jessica Lynch, now, was there? What you are going to find out is that this is simply a ploy to divert attention from the other scandals of the day while emptying out gitmo. Guy, it doesn't take a genius, partisan or not, to see right through that patheticly amatuer smoke and mirror routine.
 
Henry David said:
I guess that means the answer is 'yes'? I do hope that Curveball is not your favorite informant...:lol:
Click to expand...

I'm sorry, but arguing with someone that holds 9/11 was an inside job, regarding geopolitics, is nonsense. There's just no way we'll ever see eye-to-eye. Good day.
 
Last edited:
Glen Contrarian said:
Yes, I was in the military. I was for a time the Chief Master-at-Arms - equivalent to the shipboard chief of police. I was also assistant legal officer for a time on the same ship. And I know that it is wrong in both the military and civilian worlds to declare someone guilty without first giving them a trial. They are ALWAYS innocent until proven guilty. You can catch the scumbag and know in your heart of hearts that he's guilty, but you cannot allow yourself to proceed as if he's guilty - you MUST proceed with the assumption of innocence until proven guilty in a court of law. That's in the military AND civilian worlds, guy.

And that's precisely what that colonel meant. If you've a clue about the military, you'd know that matters like this cannot be decided by what relatively junior enlisted say to the media (one of which, btw, received an other-than-honorable discharge). Why, because false accusations occur. Was he threatened? Was he pressured to leave? WE DO NOT KNOW.

Again, guy, do you believe in the American tradition of innocent until proven guilty in a court of law?
Click to expand...

You're right. They should move to an immediate article 32. Are you for that?
 
Glen Contrarian said:
What's really stupid about this whole brouhaha, Senior, is that nobody on the Right seems to acknowledge the obvious, that if Obama brought him home, Obama's hated for it...but if Obama had left him there, Obama would be hated for that, too.
Click to expand...

What is really stupid, is that you can't seem to see past 'Obama'. It wouldn't make one bit of difference who the president was, this was a piss poor deal. Period.
 
ecofarm said:
I'm sorry, but arguing with someone that holds 9/11 was an inside job, regarding geopolitics, is nonsense. There's just no way we'll ever see eye-to-eye. Good day.
Click to expand...

Thank you. That saves us both some time and keystrokes. :peace
 
Apparently he will be held until mid August before he can see his parents.
 
rhinefire said:
Apparently he will be held until mid August before he can see his parents.
Click to expand...

August? Hmm, and I thought it would be until 1 day after the midterm election.
 
Glen Contrarian said:
You can't invade without boots on the ground. You can't occupy a place without boots on the ground. You can't take over a nation without boots on the ground.
Click to expand...
U.S. Boots on the Ground in Libya, Pentagon Confirms | Fox News
Apparently not, because each and every one of them knows how silly your argument is that we "invaded" Libya.
Click to expand...
Why is that particular term so important to you? The fact is that Libya was bombed, Qaddafi killed and, later, Americans were murdered and the place is now a mess. That is true of much of the ME under Obama's watch. It may be time to start asking the question as to whose side he really is on.
 
Arbo said:
August? Hmm, and I thought it would be until 1 day after the midterm election.
Click to expand...
Oh Yes, they'll hide him until this blows over and a new scandal emerges. They're doing the same with the witnesses at Benghazi.

This administration is becoming quite predictable if you look at things from their point of view.
 
Henry David said:
Do you still really believe that fairy tale?

Yes, we have the government we deserve. :(
Click to expand...

do you believe the fairy tale the the border between Syria and Iraq exists and is enforced? the WMDS are in Syria and being used by the same Baathist regime.. pretty well known stuff
 
Grant said:
Oh Yes, they'll hide him until this blows over and a new scandal emerges. They're doing the same with the witnesses at Benghazi.

This administration is becoming quite predictable if you look at things from their point of view.
Click to expand...

yup.. flood us with crisis's so we cant keep up with the destruction... Alinsky 101

Cloward Piven is under way
 
Grant said:
U.S. Boots on the Ground in Libya, Pentagon Confirms | Fox News
Why is that particular term so important to you? The fact is that Libya was bombed, Qaddafi killed and, later, Americans were murdered and the place is now a mess. That is true of much of the ME under Obama's watch. It may be time to start asking the question as to whose side he really is on.
Click to expand...

Denial knows no bounds. It's so important because if there were boots on the ground that would mean Obama again broke his promises and got involved with a civil war in Lybia without Congressional approval --- just like Bush.
 
Travis007 said:
do you believe the fairy tale the the border between Syria and Iraq exists and is enforced? the WMDS are in Syria and being used by the same Baathist regime.. pretty well known stuff
Click to expand...

Sure Travis, and Popeye gets all his strength from a can of spinach. :lol:
 
Travis007 said:
yup.. flood us with crisis's so we cant keep up with the destruction... Alinsky 101

Cloward Piven is under way
Click to expand...
Which is why the government is encouraging food stamps through advertising in America, Mexico and Central America. It should not be a surprise that all of these children, and 'parents', are now flooding the border. The trillions of dollars in debt will be well over $20 million, and unsustainable, by the time Obama is done. He is now ruling by presidential decree and it will be doubtful if America can ever recover.
 
Ockham said:
And the CIA was on the ground.
Click to expand...

What's sillier is you sitting here denying it. You're entitled to live in your own reality; it's still a free country.[/QUOTE]

In other words, given YOUR definition, we've invaded almost every single nation on the planet, since we've got CIA agents in just about every single nation on the planet.

And YOU are telling ME about "reality"?
 
mac said:
I'm not terribly surprised that you are unfamiliar with the attempted assassination of GHWB in Kuwait.
Click to expand...

WONDERFUL!!!! So since didn't invade Right Away, that made it okay for us to invade NINE YEARS LATER?

...in violation of UN sanctions. You really need to get a grasp.
Click to expand...

OMIGOSH!!!! They fired on coalition aircraft flying over their nation!!!! That OBVIOUSLY means that Saddam had nuclear weapons ready to launch!!!! INVADE!!!!!!! Spend TRILLIONS of dollars and thousands of lives, because Iraq FIRED on coalition aircraft flying over their nation!!!!!

Gee, how stupidly unpatriotic I must be for not being willing - nay, EAGER - to spend trillions of American taxpayer dollars and thousands of American lives to keep Iraq from firing at coalition aircraft. I mean, that's REALLY unforgivable, unlike, say, when our destroyer blew up that Iranian airliner, or when the Soviets blew up KAL 007, or when the Soviets (allegedly - there's evidence for and against) torpedoed and sank the USS Scorpion with all hands.

That counterweight to Iran is responsible for hundreds of thousands of deaths, mostly using material we supplied him in order to "counterweight" Iran. There comes a time when enough is enough. BTW, since your grasp on the history of the region is now suspect, are you aware of Desert Fox and the liberate Iraq act?

Ah. So because I strongly disagree with you ("Invade them! They fired on coalition aircraft!"), my "grasp...is now suspect".

So why didn't we invade Rwanda to stop the genocide there? Why didn't we invade Cambodia to stop the genocide there? Why didn't we invade China to stop the genocide there?

And how is YOUR grasp of history, sir, if you really think that America has any history at all of invading nations to stop genocides? Hell, if you'll ask the Native Americans - and the Filipinos, for that matter ("Kill every Filipino male over the age of ten!"), WE are not exactly innocent when it comes to committing genocide.

WAR, sir, should only be something undertaken against what are potentially existential threats...and even then, it should be avoided if the "cure" is worse than the threat (see: Mutually Assured Destruction doctrine). Otherwise, war is very, very expensive, in terms of blood and money. Counting all the interest we are paying and will pay in the coming years, we are quite literally spending TRILLIONS of American taxpayer dollars on the invasion of Iraq.

and Billary voted for it.
Click to expand...

Based on the intel she was given by the Bush administration - which, of course, turned out to be false.
Click to expand...
 
mac said:
Listen here, guy, I don't give a rat's ass if you take me at my word or not. Nor do I give a rat's ass that he is legally innocent...at the moment. He's a deserter, and certainly not worth the risk of turning over 5 exceedingly bad actors, who most likely will cause more US and Afghani deaths. In violation of US law, and international law...considering two of them were under indictment for crimes against humanity.
Click to expand...

And once more you convict without hearing both sides of the story. So many times I dealt with people on board who Just Knew that this or that person was guilty of whatever, and wouldn't give the least consideration to the thought that maybe, just maybe there's another side of the story.

Look, just like any other piece of human waste, if Bergdahl deserted, then screw him. BUT do you personally know whether he was receiving death threats from his fellow soldiers? Do you personally know whether his chain of command had been informed and ignored the report?

Of course that's almost certainly NOT what happened...but WE DON'T KNOW. YOU don't know. And we won't know until we get HIS side of the story.

THAT, senior, is why there's the AMERICAN tradition of "innocent until proven guilty". But I guess that only applies to people YOU personally approve of, and not to people YOU don't like.

What's really stupid, Shipmate, is that this occurred. No-one was traded for Jessica Lynch, now, was there?
Click to expand...

And we did NOT go to get her until we KNEW exactly where she was...and even then, we didn't know where she was until an unidentified source from the hospital told us where she was at. Did we know exactly where Bergdahl was? Did we know which hovel or which cave or which shed behind the farmhouse he was in?

What you are going to find out is that this is simply a ploy to divert attention from the other scandals of the day while emptying out gitmo. Guy, it doesn't take a genius, partisan or not, to see right through that patheticly amatuer smoke and mirror routine.
Click to expand...

Ah. So according to you, Obama KNEW where Bergdahl was, and had the deal all set to go...and told his people, "Let's wait on this and not make it happen until we need to distract from another scandal."

Riiiiiiiight.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom