• 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!

We Don’t Leave Our Men or Women in Uniform Behind

We Don’t Leave Our Men or Women in Uniform Behind


  • Total voters
    59
Was John McCain a traitor?

When he was a POW in captivity?

No.

He did confess, while in captivity, to being a war criminal, which in the strictest sense did provide aid to the enemy, but this occurred after several years in captivity and after he had been broken by torture, deprivation, and abuse.

Beyond that the narrative is that he honored the Code of Conduct to the best of his ability for as long as possible.

That's all this country can ask or expect of anyone.

Once he came home, though, he broke faith with his fellow POWs, pisses all over the Code of Conduct, and has used his position as a Congressman and Senator to stifle any effort to bring the truth about the men left behind to light.

In that sense John McCain may be among the biggest traitors in American history.

Infinitely worse than Bergdhal.

I'm not a religious man, but John McCain makes me hope that there is a hell, because rest assured, if there is, McCain will ****ing rot there.
 
Last edited:
You also do not negotiate with terrorists and I think that is the greater danger...to the country and to our soldiers, current and future.

We negotiate with terrorists all the time. Even the Reagan Administration did it.
 
Except deserters...they can rot in hell.

They're not deserters until tried and convicted. Until then they deserve the benefit of the doubt. Bring him home and let the military justice system determine his guilt and, if necessary, his punishment.


There are limits to everything of course but we should do everything within reason to bring all our people home - whether dead or alive. We owe them that much. 5 of theirs for 1 of ours is a no brainer for me. Hell the Israelis have released hundreds to get back one of their own. In that we should emulate them.
 
What would John Wayne do?


I think he'd go rescue Bergdahl....and then he'd have him stand trial and face his accusers....


...and then he'd charge $6 a ticket to see it on the silver screen. lol
 
Last edited:
We usually do. A lot of the ones that have been rescued were part of treaty arrangements, prisoner exchanges, or their families are rich / influential in the U.S. polity. I'm sorry but the realpolitik is that most soldiers are not valuable, politically speaking. Same goes for our civilians who get detained overseas. There's only so much the government is willing to do to get people back.
 
They're not deserters until tried and convicted. Until then they deserve the benefit of the doubt. Bring him home and let the military justice system determine his guilt and, if necessary, his punishment.


There are limits to everything of course but we should do everything within reason to bring all our people home - whether dead or alive. We owe them that much. 5 of theirs for 1 of ours is a no brainer for me. Hell the Israelis have released hundreds to get back one of their own. In that we should emulate them.

We were told years ago by the US government that if Americans traveled over seas we were on our own. I agree with that 100%. I have been abroad as much as any poor person, and I didn't expect anything. I don't think the fighting forces of the US should have to risk their lives to rescue John Q. Millionnnaire who decided to go to Cambodia by way of North Korea and ends up in the clink there.
 
I have read some of the accounts by soldiers in his unit but I am mindful of the fact that he did attain the rank of sergeant somehow, yes?
This is not by any means the first time a soldier has become disillusioned. There was a lot of that happening in Vietnam, and in nearly every other war as well.
There's also plenty of accounts of soldiers losing their nerve.
It's unfortunate but it does happen.
And if this nation EVER makes the mistake of abandoning one of its own to the captors, that is going to send a message that we really do not want to send, not only to prospective and current soldiers, but to the rest of the world.

I do not feel qualified to comment on Bergdahl's service or loyalty for the simple reason that the dust has not settled on all the conflicting accounts yet. There is still so much we have not verified.
Long story short it is entirely possible that this man had no earthly business joining the military at all, even if he harbored the idea of helping the Afghan people.

He makes reference in an email about some US troops laughing at the fact that kids were being run over by armored vehicles and that fact made him feel ashamed to be an American.

Now, like it or not, we must face up to the fact that there are an incredible number of verified accounts of this sort of thing happening in Afghanistan, Iraq, and in other conflicts. The excessive demonization process is partly to blame for this because, simply put, if our soldiers are being taught that these people are not human or less than human, they're not going to be the slightest bit interested in preserving the simple human dignity of the life of a child.

I do understand the fact that we are sending people to foreign countries to fight an enemy. That's an entirely different discussion.

But did we abuse German children in WW2?
Did we abuse Japanese kids?
Sigh, this is a complicated issue.

If his superiors think he broke rules, put him through a disciplinary process.
But that's an entirely different question than whether because we may not politically agree with him, that he should remain in captivity.
 
The way the OP is phrased, there's only one obvious answer: of course we leave soldiers behind. We do it all the time. We shouldn't ever do so, but we do.
 
Absolute nonsense. You don't leave POWs behind, you do what it takes to go in and get them. For crying out loud, they're American fighting men, your buddies, fathers, brothers, children, what are you going to do, just forget about them, go home and have a beer while the enemy tortures and kills them?

We knew where POWs were held in Viet Nam, in Korea in WWI and II. We got them back at the end of the war, I think. I don't think there were "rescue missions" -- if I'm wrong, my bad.

Who went to get John McCain?
 
I don't know if it's true, but I am hearing the Taliban threatened to kill him.

I'm sure they weren't filling his pipe and bringing him his slippers - but then again, the claims of threats may be a lie, or it may be the truth. We won't know for a while yet.
 
I understand, I retired from the army in 1986 and I can’t fathom what John McCain went through as a POW, none of any POW in any war either. That is something one must experience to really have an understanding of it. Knock McCain all you want for his job as a senator and for his political beliefs. That is fair game and expected. There is way too much of the politics of personal destruction to suit my fancy today. I firmly believe a campaign should be about ideas, visions, and solutions to problems, not what someone did 30 years or more years ago.

It is just someone saying McCain was a traitor, that just rubbed me the wrong way. So I took a break and put on a Barney Miller DVD, I own all eight seasons and that put me back into the proper mood. I usually do not let anything said on DP bother me, most of the things said here just roll off my back. But for some reason I just thought that went too far in ones attempt to defend Bergdahl and the swap. Attack or challenge McCain on his statements on the swaps all one wants, I am not sure whether he is for or against it myself, maybe he isn’t sure himself. But that is fair game, that is politics, that is what should be done. Not to go back to his POW days and say he was a traitor just because one holds a different political view. Anyway, that is my opinion.

Thanks for the calming post. I appreciate it.

No problem. Politics is the art of war with words, everyone has a different philosophy of how to fight. Bottom line its just business and if more people wrap their heads around it the better off we all are.
 
They're not deserters until tried and convicted. Until then they deserve the benefit of the doubt. Bring him home and let the military justice system determine his guilt and, if necessary, his punishment.


There are limits to everything of course but we should do everything within reason to bring all our people home - whether dead or alive. We owe them that much. 5 of theirs for 1 of ours is a no brainer for me. Hell the Israelis have released hundreds to get back one of their own. In that we should emulate them.

Unless his cohorts in the military say he deserted. Which they did and have. Then there are those six fellow soldiers killed by the Taliban while searching for the deserting piece of ****. He was a GD turncoat who is responsible for SIX deaths. He deserves one thing, a firing squad.
 
It doesn't obviously refer to prisononers of war to me, though. To me, it applies to every soldier in trouble. Injured on the battlefield? We won't leave you, buddy. We're here. Helicopter shot down behind enemy lines? We won't leave you, buddy. We're coming.

In fact, as I think about it, it hardly applies to prisoners of war.

I would say generally it applies to non-criminal US citizens. If you go into England and murder someone, sorry buddy, you rot in a prison your whole life long. But if you are just a regular American citizen, down in Colombia digging wells for poor villages and FARC nabs you? Well, I would say FARC should suddenly have a SEAL problem.



However, it's not an absolute concept. We do not do anything to get anyone back. Legitimate criminals (I'm sure FARC would accuse their hostages of Crimes Against The People or some such) can be left behind unless the cost of getting them back is low and the convenience for doing so is high, and we do not negotiate with terrorists because that encourages the targeting of US persons. Frankly, if I was captured by some Islamist nutjobbery organization, I would rather they simply drop as many bombs of the largest size they have lying around on my position, and kill me and every one of my captors, than leave me to be tortured / cost others their lives / have my head hacked off on television.
 
I would say generally it applies to non-criminal US citizens. If you go into England and murder someone, sorry buddy, you rot in a prison your whole life long. But if you are just a regular American citizen, down in Colombia digging wells for poor villages and FARC nabs you? Well, I would say FARC should suddenly have a SEAL problem.



However, it's not an absolute concept. We do not do anything to get anyone back. Legitimate criminals (I'm sure FARC would accuse their hostages of Crimes Against The People or some such) can be left behind unless the cost of getting them back is low and the convenience for doing so is high, and we do not negotiate with terrorists because that encourages the targeting of US persons. Frankly, if I was captured by some Islamist nutjobbery organization, I would rather they simply drop as many bombs of the largest size they have lying around on my position, and kill me and every one of my captors, than leave me to be tortured / cost others their lives / have my head hacked off on television.

I don't think you can force a soldier to fight for a war he cannot support.
 
We knew where POWs were held in Viet Nam, in Korea in WWI and II. We got them back at the end of the war, I think. I don't think there were "rescue missions" -- if I'm wrong, my bad.

Who went to get John McCain?

Son Tay Prison Raid. One of the greatest little-known military stories we have. I am honored to have met and been able to sit down and talk to one of the men who was on the ground.

In WWII we generally overran the prison camps. Although in the Pacific we did have to launch raids to rescue the guys first, because the Japanese started executing them when it became clear they were going to lose.
 
I don't think you can force a soldier to fight for a war he cannot support.

Eeeeeehhh...actually, yeah, America can. I'm one of the more liberal people here, but I can tell you this: if the nation sees the need to restart the draft and your number is called, they really don't care about your personal politics - you either go or you become a draft dodger. And it works the same way in pretty much every nation on the planet: if the poop hits the fan and the nation needs warm bodies carrying guns, everyone who's of age, is physically able, and has a one-eyed purple yogurt slinger is available to be drafted whether he likes it or not. And I pray we never see such days again.
 
Maybe the enthusiasm he had when he volunteered disappearedwhen he faced the cruel reality of what was going on in Afghanistan.

Well then it's a good thing for him that he probably only signed up for 4 years of active duty. However, he signed up, willfully and intentionally and with eyes open. You don't get to betray your country and put your team mates in grave danger just because you later wished you hadn't.
 
Obviously referring to Prisoners of war.


  • Agree
  • Disagree
  • Other

I don't know about your history or experience Pete, but I've been on actual missions where we went in and got a guy out of terrorist hands by force, and none of those missions required giving up terrorists. It has been released by the DOD that they had "eyes on" this soldier for weeks leading up to the trade. If they knew where he was, they could have sent guys in to get him. I want to know - why not? Maybe it's because an AWOL soldier wasn't worth putting special operator's lives in danger for Obama? Maybe it was because Obama planned on giving these guys up all along and this gave them a chance to get Bergdahl back at the same time? Who knows??? I sure don't, but I damn sure want to know.

We went in and got Noriega, after we sent SOF in to get a CIA operative out of his hands on the very first day of that conflict. We went in and got two of our guys in Somalia that were being held by Al Qaeda. We went in and got Jessica Lynch in Iraq. Hell, we even went into another sovereign nation (a military invasion by international law) that was supposedly an ally and got Bin Laden, without giving up anyone.

No, we don't leave anyone behind, if we can. There are guys that walked off their posts in Vietnam and are still there today. There are guys that walked off their post in many conflicts, and this guy wasn't the first. However, this is the first time this country traded high ranking terrorists for anyone... not just a soldier that went AWOL.

This action by the Obama Administration has put every US citizen abroad in danger of being grabbed to use as ransom for a trade to get more terrorists released.

For all US citizens that are overseas, the world just became a much, MUCH, more dangerous place. All US citizens, not just those in the military.

What about Robert Levinson in Iran? He's a CIA operative who has now reached the dubious distinction of being the longest held hostage in US history. Why have we left him behind, now that the government has admitted he was working for them? Why??? Because it doesn't work out that we can always get them back, that's why. You don't give up our sovereign security to get anyone back... never.

Saying we leave no man behind is great. And, when at all possible, it's true. But, it doesn't always work out that way.
 
Last edited:
I don't know about your history or experience Pete, but I've been on actual missions where we went in and got a guy out of terrorist hands by force, and none of those missions required giving up terrorists. It has been released by the DOD that they had "eyes on" this soldier for weeks leading up to the trade. If they knew where he was, they could have sent guys in to get him. I want to know - why not? Maybe it's because an AWOL soldier wasn't worth putting special operator's lives in danger for Obama? Maybe it was because Obama planned on giving these guys up all along and this gave them a chance to get Bergdahl back at the same time? Who knows??? I sure don't, but I damn sure want to know.

We went in and got Noriega, after we sent SOF in to get a CIA operative out of his hands on the very first day of that conflict. We went in and got two of our guys in Somalia that were being held by Al Qaeda. We went in and got Jessica Lynch in Iran. Hell, we even went into another sovereign nation (a military invasion by international law) that was supposedly an ally and got Bin Laden, without giving up anyone.

No, we don't leave anyone behind, if we can. There are guys that walked off their posts in Vietnam and are still there today. There are guys that walked off their post in many conflicts, and this guys wasn't the first. However, this is the first time this country traded high ranking terrorists for anyone... not just a soldier that went AWOL.

This action by the Obama Administration has put every US citizen abroad in danger of being grabbed to use as ransom for a trade to get more terrorists released.

For all US citizens that are overseas, the world just became a much, MUCH, more dangerous place. All US citizens, not just those in the military.

What about Robert Levinson in Iran? He's a CIA operative who has now reached the dubious distinction of being the longest held hostage in US history. Why have we left him behind, now that the government has admitted he was working for them? Why??? Because it doesn't work out that we can get them back, that's why. You don't give up our sovereign security to get anyone back... never.

Saying we leave no man behind is great. And, when at all possible, it's true. But, it doesn't always work out that way.

:applaud :applaud :applaud

Edit: Copy/paste this in Word and send it to your newspaper for their Letters to the Editor column. Great stuff.
 
Words like "thin" and "reaching", "hyperbole", "inapplicable", and "ludicrous" spring to mind for some reason in this thread...
 
You also do not negotiate with terrorists and I think that is the greater danger...to the country and to our soldiers, current and future.

Sure we do. See Reagan.
 
Back
Top Bottom