I think most people would agree with that sentiment if not with the particulars of the trade that brought him home. Now that he is here, it looks as if he will face the music for his actions. As well he should and it looks like his own farewell letter will be quite material in the matter.Deserter or not. The man is an American. We bring him home. Regardless what we do with him when he gets here, we bring him home.
No, what you are doing is attempting to characterize ME as a part of a group which you define as "the right" and then attack the group. It's a farce and you know it.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.
No, what you are doing is attempting to characterize ME as a part of a group which you define as "the right" and then attack the group. It's a farce and you know it.
Never once did I make this ideological. You did. You did so because you know that this was a boneheaded deal and the only way you can defend Obama for making it is to attempt to turn it into an ideological pissing match.
I'm not having any of it.
Deserter or not. The man is an American. We bring him home. Regardless what we do with him when he gets here, we bring him home.
I think most people would agree with that sentiment if not with the particulars of the trade that brought him home. Now that he is here, it looks as if he will face the music for his actions. As well he should and it looks like his own farewell letter will be quite material in the matter.
Bowe Bergdahl left letter at Afghan base saying he'd left 'to start new life' | Mail Online
[/QUOTE]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.
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.
The question isn't do we bring him home or not (even if it may be to stuff him in jail for the rest of his life) the question is how it was done and at what price.
Etiquette? In case it's not etiquette but the law he signed.I've heard pissing and moaning about bringing him home, a lot of it coming from the Right side of the isle. Post #231, I elaborated on my position.
The thing we have to recognize is that Obama has always been one to forgo custom and etiquette.
It shouldn't surprise anyone that he paid little heed to the symbolic nature of the swap. What concerns me more so is if he actually had the presence of mind to make these criminals easily removable. His incompetence on any number of given issues tells me no.
I did my research. His soldier critics claim that he was suspected of desertion and TREASON shortly after he disappeared. How does that translate into two promotions?
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
Etiquette? In case it's not etiquette but the law he signed.
The problem with Obama is he pays little heed to anything he doesn't agree with. The nature of the swap I don't disagree with. However, that doesn't excuse Obama from having to follow the law like everyone else, and I tend to disagree with these 5 Taliban leaders who were let go, as the decision was in my view incompetent and reckless.
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.
As for Iran you were talking 1950’s. Up and until the time Jimmy Carter let the Shah be over thrown we got along just fine with most of the Iranian people.
I suppose there was a valid reason the present Afghan government wasn’t told we were releasing these 5 hard core leaders. I can’t say for sure, but I suppose they would have been adamantly against it and shed some rain on the parade.
Interesting that you are not concerned at all what these 5 hard core leaders will do. I am not that concerned either, I suppose we will take care of them in due time if the need arises. Just like we took care of 30% of other releases from Gitmo that returned to the battlefield. But with these 5 back with the Taliban it probably does make it easier for them to dispose of the current government of Afghanistan. But none of know what will happen in the future. This trade may be just the tip of the Iceberg in peace negotiation with the Taliban, who knows. There are so many things done behind the people’s back, most with good reason. I know.
As for failing to deal with them as a nation, you brought that up stating we made swaps with other nations, I just tried to let you know why most people consider the Taliban a terrorist organization and not a nation. I do know that 14 tribes which now consist of the present government do consider them a terrorist organization.
I one is aware of all or most possible repercussions and weighed them against the short term gain, then I have no problem with it personally. If you think there is an uproar now, wait and see what happens if the Taliban kidnaps another American and tries to exchange him/her for more prisoners at Gitmo. This may or may not happen and I hope part of the deal for the release of the five was the Taliban’s word they would not kidnap or capture any more Americans.
As for Bergdahl, we knew he walked off his post. He made a decision to leave, it was his decision. I also heard today on the news according to a high ranking defense official this was the second time he walked off. I suppose we should wait until it is verified. But most military types have very little sympathy for Bergdahl. It does seem most of the sympathy and desire to get him in a swap comes from the civilian sector. We shall see.
Hm? Really? You post this: "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."
...and you get ticked off because I accuse you of being part of the Right?
Guy, maybe you disagree with the Right on certain things - but are you assuming that I never disagree with the Left? Look at my chosen name: "Glen Contrarian". Do you think that 'Contrarian' is there just for the hell of it? Yeah, I call myself 'progressive'...but you would be better advised not to assume that I'm some kind of talking-points-repeat-bot.
I am retired Navy - I give a damn about my fellow military, even the ones who did really stupid things like Bergdahl did. In this case I am defending Obama's actions because his actions were the right thing to do. We followed our national TRADITION. Maybe the tradition of "leave no one behind no matter what" doesn't mean that much to you, but it sure as hell does to me.
Here's something that a retired Navy warrant officer wrote - it's a truly epic ass-chewing for all those who wanted to just leave Bergdahl there. Maybe you've spent a couple decades or more in the military. If you did, even if you disagree with him, you'll enjoy it as only career military can.
What? No it doesn't mean you get to break the law because he's protected by the Senate. Just because I know a cop who has my back doesn't mean I should be allowed to commit a crime and get away with it. Either the law applies to everyone or it does not and if it does not, this government will soon fold under its own corruption. Now that doesn't sound half bad to me personally, but I still believe in accountability even though it's now considered a quaint point of view.I was speaking to his pattern of behavior...
I agree with all you're saying but being responsible for enforcing the law means you get to break it, especially when you're protected by the Senate.
I seriously doubt anything like that occurred. The AP actually contradicted Obama's own statement on the release - Obama stated the US will keep tabs on these guys when the AP reported there is no such thing planned nor logistically a way to do such a thing.What I don't think your getting is that what I'm saying is did he just let those 5 go free and clear with a pat on the bum and a "No hard feeling, eh?"
Or
Did he at some point stick a RFID chip up their asses so that once free -- unbeknownst to them -- they would lead our Intelligence community to other conspirators and if the need arises, like when they get all the intel possible, they send in a drone strike zeroed in on the RFID signal and BOOM! No more bad guys?
Not really, The Taliban and their other 3 allied troops just controlled the area where AQ was training and given safe sancturary.
What? No it doesn't mean you get to break the law because he's protected by the Senate. Just because I know a cop who has my back doesn't mean I should be allowed to commit a crime and get away with it. Either the law applies to everyone or it does not and if it does not, this government will soon fold under its own corruption. Now that doesn't sound half bad to me personally, but I still believe in accountability even though it's now considered a quaint point of view.
I seriously doubt anything like that occurred. The AP actually contradicted Obama's own statement on the release - Obama stated the US will keep tabs on these guys when the AP reported there is no such thing planned nor logistically a way to do such a thing.
What I don't get is the benefit of the doubt this President gets - when has his administration shown foresight and planning? In fact it seems to be the direct opposite; they make things up as they go along. So an RFID chip seems silly. It might be a nice thing to think about to sleep at night but that's about it.
Let's not… just answer the question rather than avoiding it.
The only 'politics' in this situation is being played by the politicians. There are valid concerns about this whole situation and those involved, and those questions don't care who was president when such a thing happens, so continuing on with 'this is just politics' is beyond moronic.
These are the people released:
Who is naive?????
These 5 guys are the Jodl, Himmler, Keitel, Geobbels and Hess of the Taliban, so yes, these 5 guys could very well make a difference.
If Bergdahl hadn't deserted his unit, he wouldn't have been captured. That one decision cost several American lives and placed no telling how many more in danger.
This sounds very nice, but very little truth lies in the history of this thinking. It only takes one Hitler, one Mao, one Stalin to shape a movement that tricks people into thinking killing mass amounts of people is ok. So to say 5 high ranking terrorists will have no effect because there are thousands out there is just ignorant.
I stated that I am glad the guy is coming home. Maybe you missed that. That doesn't mean that I have to shut up about how it was done. Or, ask questions.
I would think that the people that these 5 kill, would think that it should have mattered and that it does make a difference. What difference does it make? Are you the speech writer for Hillary Clinton also?
Thsi deal puts every American at risk to be taken hostage..
He deserted his post. 6 men directly died in operations to find him.
What do you tell those families?
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.
He is a soldier, an American soldier. It doesn't matter if he made a mistake. We should not leave his punishment or capture up to the Taliban. Get him back. Deal with everything else after he is back in us control.
And that has been the case. Now, with this president, the question is will they?