• 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!

Former POW Bergdahl set to return to active duty [W:159]

Considering that there are a number of his fellow servicemen claiming he went AWOL (even though they have potential motive, which may or may not have been acted upon) an investigation is necessary. And if you are correct and there is no investigation, then I agree with you and will be angry with you. However, I suspect that if an investigation brought him exoneration, you wouldn't accept that either.

I would have no choice but to accept it. However, I understand how government works and I believe very little of what government says. I believe nothing of what it says when there is politics involved. There won't be a court martial. Bet on it.
 
I would have no choice but to accept it. However, I understand how government works and I believe very little of what government says. I believe nothing of what it says when there is politics involved. There won't be a court martial. Bet on it.
I totally get your cynicism, I really do. What is weird here is that Montecresto can't actually explain his "motive" argument. He has no grasp of the actual timeline and to whom and where it is that Bergdahl shared his views on the military. And clearly he is not going to acquaint himself with the facts of the matter either. So he just repeats himself over and over again. Similar to how he keeps referring to the non existent call to deny Bergdahl his day in court and deny him due process. Now the fact that not a single poster in this thread has done this really does not matter to Monetcresto. It is stupid, it is dishonest, but then that is what this poster chooses to demonstrate about himself and his obtuse argument. If such idiocy can be called an argument.

In any case, it will be interesting to see what does shake out from this investigation and if in fact there will be any charges brought against Bergdahl. Hopefully your cynical take on this will be proven wrong, but I must admit that I am not altogether sure you are not correct. Time will tell!;)
 
Last edited:
I would have no choice but to accept it. However, I understand how government works and I believe very little of what government says. I believe nothing of what it says when there is politics involved. There won't be a court martial. Bet on it.

I would not make such a bet because if an investigation exonerates him, there SHOULDN'T be a court martial. I agree with your sentiments on government, if you are speaking in general, meaning regardless of what party is in power. Are you, or are you just talking about democratically controlled government?
 
It's been explained quite well, but comprehension is a personal issue.
 
It's been explained quite well, but comprehension is a personal issue.
Coming from a poster who has imagined arguments from posters in this thread that simply have not been made and don't exist? Comprehension posturing might be all you have left, but in effect you've got nada. Must be something odd in the water where you live. Who knows what the "excuse" is, it is just plain strange behavior, but behavior that is par for the course at internet message boards. Bravo Montecresto, you can post strawmen positions and made up arguments that don't actually exist! Ya just never see that on the internet!:sarcasticclap
 
Yes comparing the 5 Taliban to Goering and Himmler is a bit of a stretch, at least in the capabilities of those two had compared to what these 5 have/had. But the desired point is there. I and others have the feeling the threat assessment on these 5 was not either done or totally ignored. There may have been political reason for that, I do not know. The good news surrounding the release of Bergdahl to over shadow all the bad news coming out at the time. But after all these years, I am nothing more than an old cynic.

The surrounding circumstance of these 5 capture has never been addressed that I know of. Whether bounty, a raid, or being captured on the battlefield, I suppose on has to take his best guess. The bounty situation was never addressed at any of the meeting I attended.

Yeah, ironies occur all the time in war and in geopolitics in general. Today’s friend becomes tomorrows enemy and vice versa. One has to look no farther than Iraq to see that today. We are trying to overthrow Assad, and yet Assad is on our side fighting ISIS or IS in Iraq to help store up Maliki and the government we installed. Talk about Irony and then throw in Iran as helping too.

Super heroes no, but those 5 were received as such by the Taliban and their followers. The Taliban Commander we let loose has already stated he is headed back to the battlefield to do what damage he can, whether to us, our allies or the Afghan people. Sometimes technology and better training can be overcome with higher moral and determination. This has been proven time and time again throughout history. There are many ways to fight a superior enemy with much more firepower, head on charges never work. But there are many ways to sap the will and moral of your enemy. You also do not need to defeat them in battle either, that is if you make time your ally instead of your enemy.

It is true these 5 put their pants on the same as us, but so too did Genghis Kahn, Himmler, Hitler, Stalin, Giap, Pol Pot, etc.

I'll bet you that my Cynicism Index is a higher number than yours. ;)
 
I would not make such a bet because if an investigation exonerates him, there SHOULDN'T be a court martial. I agree with your sentiments on government, if you are speaking in general, meaning regardless of what party is in power. Are you, or are you just talking about democratically controlled government?

I'm not a partisan. I view all political parties as evil.
 
Moderator's Warning:
Let's knock off the personal crap and stick to the topic shall we?
 
Excellent analogy about this being a book we are currently reading, and don't yet know how it ends. :thumbs: However, I haven't read about any terrorists being known as cocky braggarts - they usually mean what they threaten to do! That's bad news, because they really do hate us. :afraid:

They do tend to keep a low profile. but they also tend to say exactly what they mean.
 
They haven't said they deny Bergdahl due process. You made that up. Of course they have decided he's guilty. They were there. They are witnesses. Bergdahl won't get due process. He won't get anything but a military career where he will be considered a cretin until he leaves. There won't be an investigation or a court martial. The White House has seen to that.
anyone else notice the nonsense of that post?
 
So it turns out that investigators did not press AWOL charges against him, and from previous stories that he frequently left the base to take hikes, and then came back each time, it turns out that the accusations against him from many pundits here were unfounded. So why the firestorm over the trade to get him back? We don't leave our own in the hands of the enemy, whether or not they were AWOL, but it seems that some here were very willing to do that, whether or not Bergdahl had been AWOL or not. What the hell is happening to us if we are willing to throw our soldiers into the garbage over allegations, even before an investigation shows the evidence was not enough to put Bergdahl on trial? So we traded 5 Taliban members for Bergdahl - I call that a good trade. Bergdahl is one of ours, and we don't leave ours behind to rot on the battlefield, or in the prisons of the enemy. That is the American way.

Article is here.
The problem is not not we negotiated to get him back.

The problem is the President broke the law to do it, AND the people he traded are people who should have never been let out of prison ever.
 
So it turns out that investigators did not press AWOL charges against him, and from previous stories that he frequently left the base to take hikes, and then came back each time, it turns out that the accusations against him from many pundits here were unfounded. So why the firestorm over the trade to get him back? We don't leave our own in the hands of the enemy, whether or not they were AWOL, but it seems that some here were very willing to do that, whether or not Bergdahl had been AWOL or not. What the hell is happening to us if we are willing to throw our soldiers into the garbage over allegations, even before an investigation shows the evidence was not enough to put Bergdahl on trial? So we traded 5 Taliban members for Bergdahl - I call that a good trade. Bergdahl is one of ours, and we don't leave ours behind to rot on the battlefield, or in the prisons of the enemy. That is the American way.

Article is here.

ONE of our own? They were also throwing his family under the bus as well for his father had the audacity to have grown a beard... making him Taliban-like according to the Republican punditry.

This, along with every other GOP outrage moment, has nothing to do with the actual facts and people in front of the story but all to do with trying to smear Obama... and in their minds, any collateral damage is worth doing that.
 
anyone else notice the nonsense of that post?

Due process is a legal term. For a witness to decide that someone is guilty is a personal thing. The former soldiers didn't say they wanted to deny him his legal rights. They simply said he was guilty of desertion. They explained what they witnessed. They would do the same in a court martial if, indeed, Bergdahl is ever prosecuted. People explain what they witnessed on television every day. That doesn't deny anybody any rights to due process.
 
The problem is not not we negotiated to get him back.

The problem is the President broke the law to do it, AND the people he traded are people who should have never been let out of prison ever.

You must be young.

Nixon pointed out way back when that when the POTUS does it, it cannot be illegal.

Presidents break the law whenever they damn well please, and so does Congress and of late the SCOTUS too.

Oh, he didn't inform the Congress? Who cares? Clearly Congress doesn't, except for the partisan game. Dubya admitted in front of Congress years ago that he had not complied with FISA, and nobody did a thing about it. The telecoms did his dirty work for him in violating the Fourth Amendment and received amnesty for it under FISA II.

What trials have been conducted to determine whether those people should have been kept in prison forever? Or, are you just privy to information that others are not?
 
Back
Top Bottom