• 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
Its just a matter of time until he is Court martialed for at best being a deserter or at worse for being a traitor.

Maybe, but I've seen that type of talk here fall flat in the end.
 
Which in turn would make the opinions of those former fellow soldiers and compatriots of Bergdahl that witnessed him deserting and the six dead soldiers killed while looking for him MEANINGLESS...even though it was eyewitnessed. You sir, are just running off at the mouth exactly like I am. Of course that JMO. And not supported by fact...except for all the eyewitnesses.

The few I've actually heard have not said that. But again, we'll see in the end.
 
Sure. But like the guy found covered in blood and holding the knife, still screaming at the murder victim how much they had it coming, the facts also seem to pretty clearly lay out that he is guilty.

He's guilty of desertion. He just hasn't been convicted yet, which is why he is not being punished for desertion. Recognizing that the legal system has not yet swung into action does not require us to give up our ability to observe data or apply reason.

Again, perhaps. But these pages are fill with such certainty proven wrong. We'll see.
 
Sure. But like the guy found covered in blood and holding the knife, still screaming at the murder victim how much they had it coming, the facts also seem to pretty clearly lay out that he is guilty.

He's guilty of desertion. He just hasn't been convicted yet, which is why he is not being punished for desertion. Recognizing that the legal system has not yet swung into action does not require us to give up our ability to observe data or apply reason.

Just for argument's sake:

Hagel: Rush to judgment that Bergdahl deserted ‘unfair’

Hagel: Rush to judgment that Bergdahl deserted 'unfair' | The Rundown | PBS NewsHour
 
We typically don't, but we have before.
 
Whatever their circumstances, there were some who decided to stay. That is why US statements always referred to US personnel held against their will.:peace

Sure, but the ones who were there against their will, we just left them there, thus we do leave our men and women in uniform behind.
 
I think this question is too simplistic given that it is in regards to the Bergdahl situation. Obviously you try to recover them, but you can't just say at any cost.

The 5 for 1 is a terrible idea if you consider that those five will rejoin the fight, rally enemy forces and lead to many more U.S. soldier deaths.

This "deal" was made public in 2012, why was there no objection to those 5 then? Then there is the fact that if they do try and return to Afghanistan they will likely be killed by our drones anyway. I think this is a disgusting display of hatred towards our servicemen and women. We brought that man to Afghanistan and we owe it to him to do everything possible to bring him home.
 
I think he should be brought home, and I also think if the military wants to charge him with desertion they have the right to do so. He just needs to have his day in court if they are going to charge him, not a whole populace, and media lynch mob after the guy.
Why do you feel that way?
 
The policy about no man left behind is actually No honorable man left behind........huge difference.

LOL.....it wasn't 5 days ago and NP was complaining that we didn't get him out soon enough.....its hilarious watching how people swallow the talking points hook line and sinker
 
Why do you feel that way?

Because if he is a deserter and if the military wants to charge him with that, he should have a chance to defend himself in court.
 
Except when Reagan did it.

Since he is guilty until proven innocent.
Even Krauthammer and General McChrystal don't believe this.
The fissures are growing in your GOP formation.

Referencing a 30 year old administration is ridiculous and childish.

I don't care what Krauthammer or McChrystal believe, his squad mates
say he was a deserter.

Ill take their word over anyone else's.
 
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.

Reagan is the one who coined that term and it became a conservative mantra. Other then that, the state department has never once stated that our official policy was to not negotiate with terrorists.. We won't make "concessions" to terrorists but we certainly will negotiate with them.
 
Obviously referring to Prisoners of war.


  • Agree
  • Disagree
  • Other

Other.

In a general sense I agree, but absolutes are stupid and needlessly tie your hands.

We should always make effort to retrieve our men and women who are left behind. That doesn't mean if the cost to get them is the state of New Hampshire, for example, that we just have to give it to them because "Hey, we don't leave our men and women in uniform behind".
 
I assume you mean "we did not negotiate with terrorists" (I don't see how negotiating with hostages would do anything), and, unsurprisingly, you're wrong. By today's standards, the Viet Cong were a terrorist organization, and we negotiated numerous prisoner releases and exchanges with them. Just off the top of my head.

And I suppose each time we sent them five generals for a gomer? Come on!
 
This "deal" was made public in 2012, why was there no objection to those 5 then? Then there is the fact that if they do try and return to Afghanistan they will likely be killed by our drones anyway. I think this is a disgusting display of hatred towards our servicemen and women. We brought that man to Afghanistan and we owe it to him to do everything possible to bring him home.

The rate of detainees being released from GETMO returning to the fight has been 1 in 4 or more.
Considering these guys positions, I would say its almost certain that they will (even the president doesn't deny this.)

If they return to the Taliban and rally them to increase attacks, then we have sacrificed many troops for one.

As a soldier myself, if I am captured, obviously, I would want to be recovered but not at ANY cost.
Some cost are too high. What if 10 or 20 (or more) die as a result of these guys returning to the battlefield? Is it worth it?
No.

Every soldier I know is willing to take a bullet for his battle buddies. Its part of the job.

This seems like the exact opposite.
 
Other.

In a general sense I agree, but absolutes are stupid and needlessly tie your hands.

We should always make effort to retrieve our men and women who are left behind. That doesn't mean if the cost to get them is the state of New Hampshire, for example, that we just have to give it to them because "Hey, we don't leave our men and women in uniform behind".

(5 Taliban who have never attacked us, btw) = the state of New Hampshire. Is that really what you're suggesting? :roll:
They may very well be bad people, but we are winding our involvement in Afghanistan. So what are we supposed to do with them when we are completely out of the country, leave them in Guantanamo indefinitely? Is that even legal? And we should let Bergdahl die in Afghanistan because we believe some unsubstantiated reports about him?
 
The rate of detainees being released from GETMO returning to the fight has been 1 in 4 or more.
Considering these guys positions, I would say its almost certain that they will (even the president doesn't deny this.)

If they return to the Taliban and rally them to increase attacks, then we have sacrificed many troops for one.

As a soldier myself, if I am captured, obviously, I would want to be recovered but not at ANY cost.
Some cost are too high. What if 10 or 20 (or more) die as a result of these guys returning to the battlefield? Is it worth it?
No.

Every soldier I know is willing to take a bullet for his battle buddies. Its part of the job.

This seems like the exact opposite.

What happened to "bring it on"? Bush felt we should get the terrorists over there and that is what will happen if they do go to Afghanistan. We are continuing our drone attacks even after most all of our troops leave.
You also failed to address the fact that the pending release of the same 5 Taliban was announced in 2012 and yet now it seems like the Republicans are acting like they were blindsided and are busy changing all there facebook pages. McCain himself said in 2012 that he would "be inclined to support" the exact same prisoner exchange.
 
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
Speaking of cowards.
 
But when someone lays down their gear and walks off, thereby putting other Americans at risk, why should we worry about them?

Explain that to us, if you can.




I believe that the best thing to do with someone like that is to tell them to scratch their ass.
 
I am not asking you to try and judge him. I am asking for third party evidence of how a man can be decreed a deserter and decreed a traitor without a trial.

Apparently his "sin" is that his release was organized by the Obama Administration otherwise there would be none of this behavior. It seems the cause of the opposing party trumps all our Constitutional rights and privileges.
 
(5 Taliban who have never attacked us, btw) = the state of New Hampshire.

Nice strawman, but I didn't make that assertion or implication in the least.

The State of New Hampshire = the State of New Hampshire for the purpose of highlighting why the notion of absolutes on something like this is ridiculous.

Your OP didn't specify that this topic was SPECIFICALLY about the Bergdahl situation or that you were simply attempting to trick people into making a stance SPECIFIC to that...your OP was a generalized question. I answered the generalized question, not a question about this specific situation.

Whether or not those 5 taliban prisoners were an acceptable piece of an "effort" to get back at POW is an ENTIRELY different discussion and has nothing to do with my suggestion that there are limits to what those "Efforts" should be.

If you want to discuss what I actually say, go right ahead. If you want to continue to pathetically beat up on a strawman of your own creation then I don't expect that I'll be participating. Thank you, however, for demonstrating the dishonesty in what was presented as an honest generalized question as opposed to an attempt top lay "Gotcha" games.
 
What happened to "bring it on"? Bush felt we should get the terrorists over there and that is what will happen if they do go to Afghanistan. We are continuing our drone attacks even after most all of our troops leave.
You also failed to address the fact that the pending release of the same 5 Taliban was announced in 2012 and yet now it seems like the Republicans are acting like they were blindsided and are busy changing all there facebook pages. McCain himself said in 2012 that he would "be inclined to support" the exact same prisoner exchange.

I didn't address it because I didn't feel it was relevant. Just because it was mentioned before, doesn't mean people find it acceptable.

Two top lawmakers on the Senate Intelligence Committee said Tuesday that the Obama administration broke the law by not informing Congress before the prisoner exchange that resulted in Army Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl’s release.

Democratic Sen. Dianne Feinstein and Republican Sen. Saxby Chambliss said the administration violated the law by failing to address serious concerns they had about the deal to swap Bergdahl for five Taliban detainees. Chambliss said he had not had a conversation with the White House about a possible exchange for at least 18 months.

"It comes to us with some surprise and dismay that the transfers went ahead with no consultation, totally not following law," Feinstein told reporters following a closed door meeting. "And in an issue with this kind of concern to a committee that bears the oversight responsibility, I think you can see that we're very dismayed about it .

I disagree with your logic that we should just release them because we can capture (again) or kill them. These guys were important to the opposition, that they will rally and fight harder is not a desirable outcome.
 
But when someone lays down their gear and walks off, thereby putting other Americans at risk, why should we worry about them?

Explain that to us, if you can.


I believe that the best thing to do with someone like that is to tell them to scratch their ass.

Right. Every soldier that cannot handle his duty is a despicable coward that should be left to die. Just because the military put him in that hell hole is no reason to think they have any responsibility for his mental or physical health or safe return
 
Right. Every soldier that cannot handle his duty is a despicable coward that should be left to die. Just because the military put him in that hell hole is no reason to think they have any responsibility for his mental or physical health or safe return

The military didn't put them anywhere until AFTER they signed up and swore the oath.
 
You are correct he didn't desert his post, but there were people who accused him of collaborating with the North Vietnamese.

At some point every POW will eventually talk after being tortured, even the military understands this. This Bergdhal idiot intentionally put himself at risk as well as the other men in his unit. If an officer would have had a clear shot at him while he was going AWOL it would have been acceptable to shoot him within the context of a forward combat area.

In addition, we might say we don't leave anyone behind, but anyone with a brain knows that is just something you just say. In a war we make hard decisions. Sometimes those decisions include intentionally sacrificing soldiers in order to achieve a larger strategic objective. We have sent men behind enemy lines, assaulted fortified positions, taken beachheads, and many other actions where it was known going into the battle that there would be high percentages of casualties. To say later that we would go to any means in order to release a POW just doesn't fit with the idea that soldiers are sometimes considered to be expendable. War is hell.
 
Back
Top Bottom