• Cyburbia is a friendly big tent, where we share our experiences and thoughts about urban planning practice, the built environment, planning adjacent topics, and anything else that comes to mind. No ads, no spam, and it's free. It's easy to join!

NEVERENDING ♾️ The NEVERENDING Political Discussion Thread

michaelskis said:
I don't think that Obama is a traitor. Trader maybe, but not a traitor. I pray that no harm comes to the President. Even if I disagree with is politics, he is still a husband, father, and a the President who in my eyes, has not done anything to require such action.

In terms of us pulling out of Afghanistan, if we have any Afghani Military, that is one thing, but these are Taliban/ Al Qaeda terrorists. Last I checked, we were still at war with them. I don't question the concept of releasing prisoners once the war is over, but it's not.

Can you honestly tell me that you don't think that the five released hostages will rearm themselves, join back up with the Taliban and attack again?
Click to expand...

Taliban is not the same as al qaeda and the taliban is considered our enemy but not the same thing as terrorists. This seems to be a distinction very few people understand. As i understand it Taliban has never attacked Americans outside of what Taliban considers their territory. The released will be in qatar until we are fully out of afganistan and I would imagine once they go back to afganistan we will just drone them if we feel they are a threat.
 
imaplanner said:
Taliban is not the same as al qaeda and the taliban is considered our enemy but not the same thing as terrorists. This seems to be a distinction very few people understand. As i understand it Taliban has never attacked Americans outside of what Taliban considers their territory. The released will be in qatar until we are fully out of afganistan and I would imagine once they go back to afganistan we will just drone them if we feel they are a threat.
Click to expand...

So can you honestly tell me that you don't think that the five released hostages will rearm themselves, join back up with the Taliban and attack again?
 
michaelskis said:
So can you honestly tell me that you don't think that the five released hostages will rearm themselves, join back up with the Taliban and attack again?
Click to expand...

First off, they aren't hostages unless you consider America to be a terrorist organization who captured them for a ransom. More important, who are they going to attack after we leave their country? Taliban is not al qaeda. The Taliban are not considered terrorists. They are a regional governmental organization, albeit one that is pretty awful. They have not attacked Americans outside of the battlefield, and outside of the war that we started with them. Our war with the Taliban and other factions in Afganistan is ending.
 
imaplanner said:
First off, they aren't hostages unless you consider America to be a terrorist organization who captured them for a ransom. More important, who are they going to attack after we leave their country? Taliban is not al qaeda. The Taliban are not considered terrorists. They are a regional governmental organization, albeit one that is pretty awful. They have not attacked Americans outside of the battlefield, and outside of the war that we started with them. Our war with the Taliban and other factions in Afganistan is ending.
Click to expand...

You are right, they are not hostages, they were prisoners. As for your idea that they are not a terrorist organization...
ABC News said:
But Tuesday White House National Security Council spokesperson Caitlin Hayden noted that the Taliban was added to the list of Specially Designated Global Terrorists (SDGT) by executive order in July 2002, even if it is not listed as a Foreign Terrorist Organization (FTO) by the State Department. Either designation triggers asset freezes, according to the State Department, though they can differ on other restrictions imposed on the target organization. The Treasury Department told ABC News the Taliban is still on their SDGT list.
Click to expand...
LINK

These guys were not some low level grunts either, they were commanders, organizers, and directors.

So back to my question that you keep avoiding because you know I am right. Do you actually believe that the 5 prisoners that were traded will cause no harm to the US or US alies and sit idle, or will they rejoin the fight?
 
michaelskis said:
You are right, they are not hostages, they were prisoners. As for your idea that they are not a terrorist organization...
LINK

These guys were not some low level grunts either, they were commanders, organizers, and directors.

So back to my question that you keep avoiding because you know I am right. Do you actually believe that the 5 prisoners that were traded will cause no harm to the US or US alies and sit idle, or will they rejoin the fight?
Click to expand...


Because conservatives seem to struggle with short-term memory loss, here's a trip down memory lane:

Bush released over 500 from Gitmo, transferring to other countries in similar manner to this release to Qatar:
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/jun/18/steny-hoyer/hoyer-correct-500-guantanamo-detainees-were-releas/

in fact, there was usually nothing received in return for these releases.

This includes the release of Abu Sufian bin Qumu, who has been identified as the leader of... wait for it... wait for it... the Benghazi attack:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2535953/Former-Guantanamo-Bay-detainee-terrorist-group-took-fatal-attack-American-consulate-Benghazi.html

As my esteemed Texas governor would say... "oops."

Where was the outrage?

WHERE WAS THE OUTRAGE?!?!?!?!?

But hey, let's come back around to our friend, "the deserter" Bergdahl... I wonder what the conservatives were saying about him only a few years ago...
http://www.slate.com/blogs/weigel/2014/06/04/here_s_how_quickly_conservatives_turned_on_bowe_bergdahl.html

That's right... a guy created a whole damn database of conservative pundits & bloggers that were all about Bergdahl's release, until they weren't/ Oh, but that was just some conservative bloggers... the GOP certainly wouldn't call "to do everything we can" to bring home our only POW in Afghanistan and then change direction for the sake of political opportunism... would they?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/06/03/bowe-bergdahl-release_n_5439644.html

Oh right... that would never happen.

And I'm not even going to bring up Republican Jesus Ronald Reagan and Iran-Contra...

At this point I could shit down the throat of any GOP congressperson and it would smell better than the putrid filth & political opportunism they spew on a daily basis. It isn't even that I want to vote for the Democrats... I just can't stand the GOP bullshit. They are backwards thinking on damn near everything.

By the way, this is not a defense of Bergdahl. He needs to answer an awful lot of questions.
 
Suburb Repairman said:
Because conservatives seem to struggle with short-term memory loss, here's a trip down memory lane:

Bush released over 500 from Gitmo, transferring to other countries in similar manner to this release to Qatar:
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/jun/18/steny-hoyer/hoyer-correct-500-guantanamo-detainees-were-releas/

in fact, there was usually nothing received in return for these releases.

This includes the release of Abu Sufian bin Qumu, who has been identified as the leader of... wait for it... wait for it... the Benghazi attack:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2535953/Former-Guantanamo-Bay-detainee-terrorist-group-took-fatal-attack-American-consulate-Benghazi.html

As my esteemed Texas governor would say... "oops."

Where was the outrage?

WHERE WAS THE OUTRAGE?!?!?!?!?

But hey, let's come back around to our friend, "the deserter" Bergdahl... I wonder what the conservatives were saying about him only a few years ago...
http://www.slate.com/blogs/weigel/2014/06/04/here_s_how_quickly_conservatives_turned_on_bowe_bergdahl.html

That's right... a guy created a whole damn database of conservative pundits & bloggers that were all about Bergdahl's release, until they weren't/ Oh, but that was just some conservative bloggers... the GOP certainly wouldn't call "to do everything we can" to bring home our only POW in Afghanistan and then change direction for the sake of political opportunism... would they?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/06/03/bowe-bergdahl-release_n_5439644.html

Oh right... that would never happen.

And I'm not even going to bring up Republican Jesus Ronald Reagan and Iran-Contra...

At this point I could shit down the throat of any GOP congressperson and it would smell better than the putrid filth & political opportunism they spew on a daily basis. It isn't even that I want to vote for the Democrats... I just can't stand the GOP bullshit. They are backwards thinking on damn near everything.

By the way, this is not a defense of Bergdahl. He needs to answer an awful lot of questions.
Click to expand...



I am not well versed on those, but your right, based on what you have posted, those Presidents should not have done that either. It does not change what President Obama did one bit. More so, he kept the CIA, Congress, and everyone other than the State Department in the dark because they were all opposed to it every time it was brought up before.

I have made it very clear that I don't care what letter is behind a person's name, they all do the same thing and odds are we will get screwed because of it.



On a side note, maybe we should have a Bush's Law. Anytime anyone says anything negative about Obama or the current government, Bush's stupid actions (and there are a lot of them) always seem to come up.
 
michaelskis said:
On a side note, maybe we should have a Bush's Law. Anytime anyone says anything negative about Obama or the current government, Bush's stupid actions (and there are a lot of them) always seem to come up.
Click to expand...

Because we are still living with the world view that was created by the actions of the Bush administration following 9/11. Everything he/they did following 9/11, whether it was military or domestic policy, we are still dealing with the after effects.
 
My biggest issue with the GOP is that they have entrenched themselves so deep that whatever the present administration proposes or does, they are immediately against no matter the issue or outcome.

With just some compromise this could have been a fairly productive time in our country, but instead it has become the most stagnant-rhetoric based time in our history.

BTW - I don't vote D or R, I vote candidate.
 
Suburb Repairman said:
Because conservatives seem to struggle with short-term memory loss, here's a trip down memory lane:

Bush released over 500 from Gitmo, transferring to other countries in similar manner to this release to Qatar:
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/jun/18/steny-hoyer/hoyer-correct-500-guantanamo-detainees-were-releas/

in fact, there was usually nothing received in return for these releases.

This includes the release of Abu Sufian bin Qumu, who has been identified as the leader of... wait for it... wait for it... the Benghazi attack:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2535953/Former-Guantanamo-Bay-detainee-terrorist-group-took-fatal-attack-American-consulate-Benghazi.html

As my esteemed Texas governor would say... "oops."

Where was the outrage?

WHERE WAS THE OUTRAGE?!?!?!?!?

But hey, let's come back around to our friend, "the deserter" Bergdahl... I wonder what the conservatives were saying about him only a few years ago...
http://www.slate.com/blogs/weigel/2014/06/04/here_s_how_quickly_conservatives_turned_on_bowe_bergdahl.html

That's right... a guy created a whole damn database of conservative pundits & bloggers that were all about Bergdahl's release, until they weren't/ Oh, but that was just some conservative bloggers... the GOP certainly wouldn't call "to do everything we can" to bring home our only POW in Afghanistan and then change direction for the sake of political opportunism... would they?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/06/03/bowe-bergdahl-release_n_5439644.html

Oh right... that would never happen.

And I'm not even going to bring up Republican Jesus Ronald Reagan and Iran-Contra...

At this point I could shit down the throat of any GOP congressperson and it would smell better than the putrid filth & political opportunism they spew on a daily basis. It isn't even that I want to vote for the Democrats... I just can't stand the GOP bullshit. They are backwards thinking on damn near everything.

By the way, this is not a defense of Bergdahl. He needs to answer an awful lot of questions.
Click to expand...

This is how I feel.

I'm actually quite saddened, more so than anytime I can think of recently, at America. It's still an open question if the guy even deserted, and the report on his dissapearance makes the case that it might not have been desertion. http://mobile.nytimes.com/2014/06/0...fore-military-report-says.html?_r=0&referrer=

But spurred by a desire to criticize Obama so many people are now actually saying we should have left an American soldier behind to die in Taliban hands. Even after all of the unhinged political nonsense of the last decade or so I truly never thought Americans would call for leaving a soldier behind. Watching Fox the other day one of the reasons they said he should have been left behind is because he spoke pashto and his dad looks like a muslim. I'm so disgusted with this I don't even know what to say anymore.
 
imaplanner said:
This is how I feel.

I'm actually quite saddened, more so than anytime I can think of recently, at America. It's still an open question if the guy even deserted, and the report on his dissapearance makes the case that it might not have been desertion. http://mobile.nytimes.com/2014/06/0...fore-military-report-says.html?_r=0&referrer=

But spurred by a desire to criticize Obama so many people are now actually saying we should have left an American soldier behind to die in Taliban hands. Even after all of the unhinged political nonsense of the last decade or so I truly never thought Americans would call for leaving a soldier behind. Watching Fox the other day one of the reasons they said he should have been left behind is because he spoke pashto and his dad looks like a muslim. I'm so disgusted with this I don't even know what to say anymore.
Click to expand...

I agree... people are so polarized, mainly because of the mass media. Fox News and CNN only add fuel to the fire, which is why I don't watch any of them. As for the leaving a soldier behind. Based on what the guys who fought beside his side, he walked away and some say that he went looking for the Taliban. They held him for years and all the reports show that he was treated well for a prisoner. I personally don't think they would have killed him. There is also reports that the accuracy of the attacks from the Taliban improved after he went missing, leading some to say that he provided information.

I think in time we might see that he was a traitor who got in over his head.
 
imaplanner said:
This is how I feel.

I'm actually quite saddened, more so than anytime I can think of recently, at America. It's still an open question if the guy even deserted, and the report on his dissapearance makes the case that it might not have been desertion. http://mobile.nytimes.com/2014/06/0...fore-military-report-says.html?_r=0&referrer=

But spurred by a desire to criticize Obama so many people are now actually saying we should have left an American soldier behind to die in Taliban hands. Even after all of the unhinged political nonsense of the last decade or so I truly never thought Americans would call for leaving a soldier behind. Watching Fox the other day one of the reasons they said he should have been left behind is because he spoke pashto and his dad looks like a muslim. I'm so disgusted with this I don't even know what to say anymore.
Click to expand...

All this angst and ennui is simply multiple indicators of our decline. It is our choice whether we have a hard landing or a soft landing.
 
Time said:
Asked whether the Taliban would be inspired by the exchange to kidnap others, he laughs. “Definitely,” he says. “It’s better to kidnap one person like Bergdahl than kidnapping hundreds of useless people. It has encouraged our people. Now everybody will work hard to capture such an important bird.”
Click to expand...
LINK

Well, it looks like the President just empowered the enemy.
 
Meh.

I've been following the Bergdahl story with some interest.

I don't pay attention to who's screaming foul play or their political origins.

But I do find it interesting that Bergdahl was lauded by the administration as a hero when it's pretty bleedin' obvious he deliberately deserted his unit and walked out of the camp on his own account. The initial army investigation into his capture strongly implies he was looking for the Taliban. His former troop mates have nothing good to say about him, partly because six (?) men were killed trying to look for him. And the success rate of attacks on US solders picked up noticeably after he was captured. And it's interesting the Taliban didn't kill him. They kept him captive for five years. Everything about it suggests there's a whole lot more about Berghdal's desertion than is being publicly claimed by the administration. Heck, even liberal writers in liberal papers are raising these questions about Bergdahl. Was this guy worth rescuing? There are other captives being held by the Taliban.

Strip away the politics, if you can. Ignore the D and R labels next to everyone's name. Like a lot of people I'm pretty tired of the D vs R wars in Washington, but when I ignore the politicos and get down to the hardcore facts it's still hard to avoid the simple question of whether Bergdahl was really the man you want to bring home in exchange for releasing five very high profile Taliban prisoners? There's something rather sloppy about how the decision was made and enacted. And as someone who lives in the Middle East, Qatar isn't the country I would have trusted to hold the Taliban prisoners. Saudi? Yes. UAE? Yes. Qatar? No.

As it is, something inside me says the US government needs to keep a damn close watch on Bergdahl for a very long time.
 
FYI.

Had an interesting chat with a friend who works for the State Department in a Middle Eastern capacity. Hardcore liberal for those of you who care about such things. Couldn't specifically comment on what people at State thought/felt about the Bergdahl exchange but did say that it was a major PR disaster. Handovers have happened in the past and more frequently than is commonly known, and it's always done under wraps. Quietly, quickly and the kidnapped personnel are brought back to the US with no fanfare or media attention. He said that given the scandal around Bergdahl's desertion it was a piss poor decision of the administration to publicize it and have his parents on TV with the president, including the father who looks like an Islamic mullah or Susan Rice on a media show saying he'd served with honor and distinction, when he clearly hadn't. Military issues are taken very seriously in the US and there was no way any publicity over Bergdahl's release wasn't going to cause controversy.

He also said that Bergdahl will likely face trial for desertion.

I don't know how serious he was when he also said that he wouldn't be too surprised if the Taliban 5 quietly escaped from Qatar through a conveniently unlocked gate and slipping across the border into Saudi Arabia, where they'd be met by a very helpful US drone sent up from Yemen.....
 
PennPlanner said:
Meh.

I've been following the Bergdahl story with some interest.

I don't pay attention to who's screaming foul play or their political origins.

But I do find it interesting that Bergdahl was lauded by the administration as a hero when it's pretty bleedin' obvious he deliberately deserted his unit and walked out of the camp on his own account. The initial army investigation into his capture strongly implies he was looking for the Taliban. His former troop mates have nothing good to say about him, partly because six (?) men were killed trying to look for him. And the success rate of attacks on US solders picked up noticeably after he was captured. And it's interesting the Taliban didn't kill him. They kept him captive for five years. Everything about it suggests there's a whole lot more about Berghdal's desertion than is being publicly claimed by the administration. Heck, even liberal writers in liberal papers are raising these questions about Bergdahl. Was this guy worth rescuing? There are other captives being held by the Taliban.

Strip away the politics, if you can. Ignore the D and R labels next to everyone's name. Like a lot of people I'm pretty tired of the D vs R wars in Washington, but when I ignore the politicos and get down to the hardcore facts it's still hard to avoid the simple question of whether Bergdahl was really the man you want to bring home in exchange for releasing five very high profile Taliban prisoners? There's something rather sloppy about how the decision was made and enacted. And as someone who lives in the Middle East, Qatar isn't the country I would have trusted to hold the Taliban prisoners. Saudi? Yes. UAE? Yes. Qatar? No.

As it is, something inside me says the US government needs to keep a damn close watch on Bergdahl for a very long time.
Click to expand...


I've been following this pretty closely and the initial army investigation found the opposite of what you claim.
It found that Bergdahl had left base and came back a few times before and there was no evidence whatsoever that he was looking for the taliban.
http://mobile.nytimes.com/2014/06/0...ay-before-military-report-says.html?referrer=

Strip away the politics, and you find that republicans were all for bringing Bowe back before Obama did it and they flipped.
http://m.washingtonpost.com/politic...38698a-ece3-11e3-93d2-edd4be1f5d9e_story.html

And if you've been paying attention like you claim, you would know his former troop mates have nothing good to say about him but it was primarily because they didn't like him because he was a nerd.  None of them mention anti-American or disloyal behavior prior to when he goes missing. All of the insinuations that he is a traitor stem from the fact that he wrote letters disillusioned with the war and his dad has a beard so must be a muslim and he learned how to speak pashto. The military leaders in charge of afghan ops at the time have spoken out and said wait until the facts come out before judging.

And as someone who routinely goes on base due to family members in the military (all of whom are disgusted by the insinuations and sudden opinion that we should leave soldiers behind) I can tell you that "Bring Back Bowe" posters were common on base. Up until the point where President Obama became involved in the story all military wanted this guy brought home.

While I never served, my dad, uncle and cousins all served including my dad and uncle in vietnam and they are adamant that you bring soldiers back and are disturbed by the republican insistence that we should have left an american soldier to die.
 
Dunno dude.

Internal Army investigations into Bergdahl's desertion revealed interviews with local Afghans, who said Bergdahl was asking how to find the Taliban. Of course, these villagers may be lying. It's up to you to decide how to interpret the statements. When a soldier goes missing especially in circumstances like this, the unit is often ordered to never speak of the matter publicly until the soldier is found, for security reasons. It's standard military procedure. Now that Bergdahl is found and safe back in US soil it's not surprising that other soldiers from his unit are speaking up about it.

I don't care what the Republicans think. Or what the Democrats think.

"A Pentagon investigation in 2010 concluded that there was "incontrovertible" evidence that Bergdahl walked away from his unit." Wiki.

He deserted his army unit. He willingly walked into hostile Afghan territory. Why would anyone do this? Have you been to Afghanistan? I have. It's not a friendly stroll through the English countryside. It's impossible for him to have done this without a very high chance of either getting captured by the Taliban or recaptured by the US military. He knew this fully well. As does any soldier serving in Afghanistan. Bergdahl will be tried by military courts. We'll see what happens then.

As it is, whatever one thinks of Bergdahl, the way the release was handled and publicized was a major PR cock-up. And that's all I have to say about it so I'm bowing out of this conversation.

Cheers


imaplanner said:
I've been following this pretty closely and the initial army investigation found the opposite of what you claim.
It found that Bergdahl had left base and came back a few times before and there was no evidence whatsoever that he was looking for the taliban.
http://mobile.nytimes.com/2014/06/0...ay-before-military-report-says.html?referrer=

Strip away the politics, and you find that republicans were all for bringing Bowe back before Obama did it and they flipped.
http://m.washingtonpost.com/politic...38698a-ece3-11e3-93d2-edd4be1f5d9e_story.html

And if you've been paying attention like you claim, you would know his former troop mates have nothing good to say about him but it was primarily because they didn't like him because he was a nerd.  None of them mention anti-American or disloyal behavior prior to when he goes missing. All of the insinuations that he is a traitor stem from the fact that he wrote letters disillusioned with the war and his dad has a beard so must be a muslim and he learned how to speak pashto. The military leaders in charge of afghan ops at the time have spoken out and said wait until the facts come out before judging.

And as someone who routinely goes on base due to family members in the military (all of whom are disgusted by the insinuations and sudden opinion that we should leave soldiers behind) I can tell you that "Bring Back Bowe" posters were common on base. Up until the point where President Obama became involved in the story all military wanted this guy brought home.

While I never served, my dad, uncle and cousins all served including my dad and uncle in vietnam and they are adamant that you bring soldiers back and are disturbed by the republican insistence that we should have left an american soldier to die.
Click to expand...
 
PennPlanner said:
Dunno dude.

Internal Army investigations into Bergdahl's desertion revealed interviews with local Afghans, who said Bergdahl was asking how to find the Taliban. Of course, these villagers may be lying. It's up to you to decide how to interpret the statements. When a soldier goes missing especially in circumstances like this, the unit is often ordered to never speak of the matter publicly until the soldier is found, for security reasons. It's standard military procedure. Now that Bergdahl is found and safe back in US soil it's not surprising that other soldiers from his unit are speaking up about it.

I don't care what the Republicans think. Or what the Democrats think.

"A Pentagon investigation in 2010 concluded that there was "incontrovertible" evidence that Bergdahl walked away from his unit." Wiki.

He deserted his army unit. He willingly walked into hostile Afghan territory. Why would anyone do this? Have you been to Afghanistan? I have. It's not a friendly stroll through the English countryside. It's impossible for him to have done this without a very high chance of either getting captured by the Taliban or recaptured by the US military. He knew this fully well. As does any soldier serving in Afghanistan. Bergdahl will be tried by military courts. We'll see what happens then.

As it is, whatever one thinks of Bergdahl, the way the release was handled and publicized was a major PR cock-up. And that's all I have to say about it so I'm bowing out of this conversation.

Cheers
Click to expand...

I haven't seen anything about him seeking out the taliban except by hearsay. The pentagon investigation found that he walked away but could not conclude he deserted. Big diff between awol and desertion, and there are hundreds if not thousands of awols every year. To be fair, my cousins in particular totally think he did the right thing here but that he did it not hecause he supports the troops but because he wanted to change the subject from all the other stuff they want Obama impeached for.
 
PennPlanner said:
Meh.

I've been following the Bergdahl story with some interest.

I don't pay attention to who's screaming foul play or their political origins.
Click to expand...

From the content of your comments on this topic, you don't pay attention to credible sources either. Lots of agitprop out there for GOTV campaign and mid-term election fundraising. Three of the 5 were politicians, not fighters. Another was a cop. They are all mid-40s and have been replaced and their networks gone. They have symbolic value but little operational value.

Come now. He watched a kid get run over and no one care, his f8ckup unit trash the place and his f8ckup superiors not give a d@mn. It's not preposterous to presume he had a better shot at living on his own.

Nevertheless, the creep show that has resulted from the flying howler monkeys let loose on Idaho, certain teevee networks and the Internets is harming our country. We should expect more prisoner taking because look what it does to our country internally.

Whose Yur Planner said:
Did you ever think that that may be their long game?
Click to expand...

Divide and conquer? Sure.
 
Comments like this always make me deeply regret bothering posting on this political discussion thread (or the few other such threads). Ad hominem attacks, focus on attacking sources while skipping over core facts, automatically discrediting so and so because it's from NYTimes/FoxNews/WSJ/Post etc, screaming "but it's from a D or a R," dragging up non relevant subjects to excuse other actions.

Perhaps my flaw is that I've never willingly bought into the idea that everything is due to deliberately orchestrated media or propaganda attacks. In an age of instant media and social networking, "outrage" can happen very quickly and spread very quickly and there's no need for the evil money man pulling levers in the background.

Anyway, I enjoyed this article from the New Republic (liberal magazine FYI) http://www.newrepublic.com/article/118006/bowe-bergdahl-perspective-marine-afghanistan It does a decent job illustrating the complexity surrounding Bergdahl within and outside the military and doesn't attempt to pass judgement.

Still, lesson learned. No point posting on this thread anymore. ;) I'll leave that to the more dedicated.

ColoGI said:
From the content of your comments on this topic, you don't pay attention to credible sources either. Lots of agitprop out there for GOTV campaign and mid-term election fundraising. Three of the 5 were politicians, not fighters. Another was a cop. They are all mid-40s and have been replaced and their networks gone. They have symbolic value but little operational value.

Come now. He watched a kid get run over and no one care, his f8ckup unit trash the place and his f8ckup superiors not give a d@mn. It's not preposterous to presume he had a better shot at living on his own.

Nevertheless, the creep show that has resulted from the flying howler monkeys let loose on Idaho, certain teevee networks and the Internets is harming our country. We should expect more prisoner taking because look what it does to our country internally.
Click to expand...
 
PennPlanner said:
Comments like this always make me deeply regret bothering posting on this political discussion thread (or the few other such threads).
Click to expand...

Nobody leaves brothers behind. Then allows attacks on their family and hometown. And allows f&uckwit media to smear their brother and i?iots to spread FUD. Get a grip on yourself.
 
ColoGI said:
Nobody leaves brothers behind. Then allows attacks on their family and hometown. And allows f&uckwit media to smear their brother and i?iots to spread FUD. Get a grip on yourself.
Click to expand...

I agree. The US Constitution, which so many of the nutwingers pretend to worship, requires criminal conviction to establish guilt, not accusations, suppositions, and media rants.

Bergdahl is an American soldier, and the US doesn't leave its own behind. Plain and simple. It's for the US military to determine if it thinks he was a deserter, and if so, then to try him as one.
 
Linda_D said:
I agree. The US Constitution, which so many of the nutwingers pretend to worship, requires criminal conviction to establish guilt, not accusations, suppositions, and media rants.

Bergdahl is an American soldier, and the US doesn't leave its own behind. Plain and simple. It's for the US military to determine if it thinks he was a deserter, and if so, then to try him as one.
Click to expand...

It is not the concept that we are bring him home that I question, it is the way we do it. It reminds me of Abraham Clark, one of the signers of the Declaration of Independence. After he signed, the British captured one of his sons and put them on prison ship "The Jersey" which was known for being one of the worst. All he needed to do was take back his signature and they would release his sons. Guess what, he held his ground, kept his signature on the document knowing that it might mean death for his son.

Abraham Clark understood that there is a limit to what you can trade for a solder and a son. He was not about to sell his honor and the honor of his country.
 
michaelskis said:
It is not the concept that we are bring him home that I question, it is the way we do it. It reminds me of Abraham Clark, one of the signers of the Declaration of Independence. After he signed, the British captured one of his sons and put them on prison ship "The Jersey" which was known for being one of the worst. All he needed to do was take back his signature and they would release his sons. Guess what, he held his ground, kept his signature on the document knowing that it might mean death for his son.

Abraham Clark understood that there is a limit to what you can trade for a solder and a son. He was not about to sell his honor and the honor of his country.
Click to expand...

5 for 1 is nothing. The Israelis have traded 1000+ for 1 of their own more than once.

This is nothing more than more political posturing by the Right who especially can't stand to see a Democratic POTUS, especially Obama, have any success. You can lie to yourself, but don't attempt to lie to everyone else that if this was a move by a Republican POTUS, the very people who are decrying this would be applauding. That includes you.

The US does not leave its own behind. It's cut and dried in my book, and I would feel the same no matter who the POTUS was, including such reprehensible politicians as Richard Nixon. It's about time that the Right stopped wrapping itself in the flag during photo ops on Memorial Day in a big show of supporting the troops and then criticizing for the POTUS for doing just that less than two weeks later just because the President is of the opposite party. You either support the troops or you don't, and if you support them, you bring them home. All of them. Not just the heroes or the sympathetic ones.
 
PennPlanner said:
Comments like this always make me deeply regret bothering posting on this political discussion thread (or the few other such threads). Ad hominem attacks,.
Click to expand...

I must have missed the ad hominem attacks penn planner. Nobody called you any names.

As far as attacking sources while skipping over core facts I fail to see it. For one, you didn't post any source or links. You claimed the pentagon investigation found he was seeking out the taliban and the charge that he is a traitor is a charge repeated endlessly on Fox News, but not even Fox has made the claim that the pentagon found this. If you can link to any news reports of the pentagon finding this then I will totally flip my position on this whole deal. But AFAIK its totally false and investigations to date show nothing that could back up this very serious charge. http://thelead.blogs.cnn.com/2014/0...hatter-said-bergdahl-was-seeking-the-taliban/

If there was any actual evidence the guy was a traitor I would be right with you. But so far there is absolutely no evidence this is the case. People making this claim were calling for his release a few weeks ago and only made these assertions after Obama negotiated his release. I'm disturbed by this desire to paint a POW a traitor with zero evidence. It just feels icky to me. Worse than that really.
 
Linda_D said:
5 for 1 is nothing. The Israelis have traded 1000+ for 1 of their own more than once.

This is nothing more than more political posturing by the Right who especially can't stand to see a Democratic POTUS, especially Obama, have any success. You can lie to yourself, but don't attempt to lie to everyone else that if this was a move by a Republican POTUS, the very people who are decrying this would be applauding. That includes you.
Click to expand...

No Linda, I don't give a rip about the letter behind someone's name. More so, even Democrats are bailing on this President. I agree, it is great that he is coming home to face military tribunals, but to trade him for these 5 Taliban commanders is a bad move. I would love to be able to bring all our troops home, including POW's. But there is thresholds where actions only result in more dangerous conditions.

Then we have Sgt. Andrew Tahmooressi. He is being held in mexico because he apparently made a wrong turn. (CNN LINK for you FOX haters) Do you think that we should trade 5 Mexican drug lords and let them reestablish their cartels which would result in even more American deaths as drugs flood the streets and drug related violence continues?

I respect your commitment to your party line, but I am going to call it like it is, a very bad decision.

Linda_D said:
The US does not leave its own behind. It's cut and dried in my book, and I would feel the same no matter who the POTUS was, including such reprehensible politicians as Richard Nixon. It's about time that the Right stopped wrapping itself in the flag during photo ops on Memorial Day in a big show of supporting the troops and then criticizing for the POTUS for doing just that less than two weeks later just because the President is of the opposite party. You either support the troops or you don't, and if you support them, you bring them home. All of them. Not just the heroes or the sympathetic ones.
Click to expand...

Despite the the creation of the EPA (good thing) and expansion of the Civil Rights Commission (good thing), Nixion was a joke. You can say I don't support the troops all day long. But despite the reality that we should not have troops in most of the places that we do, that the war in Iraq and Afghanistan was also a bad choice, and we need to do a better job of dealing with domestic issues before we should liberate other countries, I do support our troops. They have a amazingly difficult job and I applaud them for the ability to put politics aside and follow orders. But I am not going to be so blinded by political ideology to overlook something like this.
 
michaelskis said:
No Linda, I don't give a rip about the letter behind someone's name. More so, even Democrats are bailing on this President. I agree, it is great that he is coming home to face military tribunals, but to trade him for these 5 Taliban commanders is a bad move. I would love to be able to bring all our troops home, including POW's. But there is thresholds where actions only result in more dangerous conditions.

Then we have Sgt. Andrew Tahmooressi. He is being held in mexico because he apparently made a wrong turn. (CNN LINK for you FOX haters) Do you think that we should trade 5 Mexican drug lords and let them reestablish their cartels which would result in even more American deaths as drugs flood the streets and drug related violence continues?
Click to expand...

The comparison of Sgt Berghdahl and the circumstances surrounding his capture to Sgt Tahmooressi and the circumstances surrounding his arrest is a laughable one.

Andrew Tahmooressi was no longer on active duty at the time he crossed the border into Mexico weapons that are illegal to have in Mexico. Whether he crossed in to Mexico intentionally or not, there are numerous warnings before you approach the final exit on I-5 warning travelers that they are coming to the border and to exit beforehand unless they intend to cross. As a former Marine, he should have had much more "situational awareness". And I don't care how much of a traffic f*ck up it would cause, if it were me, and I missed every possible exit, and I had guns and wasn't trying to cross the border, there is absolutely no way I'd drive all the way through the border. I'd rather deal with irate CBP agents and a traffic ticket (and maybe getting towed) than a foreign government. And I can guarantee you that the staff working on the U.S. side have had to deal with idiots getting too close to the border and then realizing they did not want to cross, it would just be another day at the office for them.

While I hope that our consuls general in Tijuana and the State Department can work to free Andrew Tahmooressi or make sure he is treated fairly and that the Mexican judicial system follows the rule of law, I have only slightly more than zero f*cks to give on his behalf.
 
WSU MUP Student said:
The comparison of Sgt Berghdahl and the circumstances surrounding his capture to Sgt Tahmooressi and the circumstances surrounding his arrest is a laughable one.

Andrew Tahmooressi was no longer on active duty at the time he crossed the border into Mexico weapons that are illegal to have in Mexico. Whether he crossed in to Mexico intentionally or not, there are numerous warnings before you approach the final exit on I-5 warning travelers that they are coming to the border and to exit beforehand unless they intend to cross. As a former Marine, he should have had much more "situational awareness". And I don't care how much of a traffic f*ck up it would cause, if it were me, and I missed every possible exit, and I had guns and wasn't trying to cross the border, there is absolutely no way I'd drive all the way through the border. I'd rather deal with irate CBP agents and a traffic ticket (and maybe getting towed) than a foreign government. And I can guarantee you that the staff working on the U.S. side have had to deal with idiots getting too close to the border and then realizing they did not want to cross, it would just be another day at the office for them.

While I hope that our consuls general in Tijuana and the State Department can work to free Andrew Tahmooressi or make sure he is treated fairly and that the Mexican judicial system follows the rule of law, I have only slightly more than zero f*cks to give on his behalf.
Click to expand...

But wait a minute... what about "Leave No Man Behind?" Is he not as worthy as someone who walked out of his unit in search of the Taliban? Is he not a current member of the armed forces active or not?

Yes, Tahmooressi did something stupid, but it is hypocritical to say yes, bring one guy home and not another.
 
Hmmm

michaelskis said:
But wait a minute... what about "Leave No Man Behind?" Is he not as worthy as someone who walked out of his unit in search of the Taliban? Is he not a current member of the armed forces active or not?

Yes, Tahmooressi did something stupid, but it is hypocritical to say yes, bring one guy home and not another.
Click to expand...

Last I checked we aren't at war with Mexico (well not technically:r:) I think most of the people out there thought Tahmooressi was full time active to begin with. I'm wondering if he was just trying to make a name for himself??:-o
 
michaelskis said:
But wait a minute... what about "Leave No Man Behind?" Is he not as worthy as someone who walked out of his unit in search of the Taliban? Is he not a current member of the armed forces active or not?

Yes, Tahmooressi did something stupid, but it is hypocritical to say yes, bring one guy home and not another.
Click to expand...

Tahmooressi was not in the San Diego theater of operations on official business. He was no longer an active duty member of the armed forces participating in an ongoing operation on foreign soil.

If we were to extend the "leave no man behind" principle to all veterans, I have a friend who is a Navy veteran and was arrested in Canada on a drunk driving offense and spent a couple months in a jail in southern Ontario and a former Marine colleague who moved to Thailand and then got arrested on a drug charge who I am sure would have loved a prisoner exchange on their behalves. :r:

Just because somebody served at some point doesn't mean they are deserving of all the support of the DoD or the Geneva Convention once they do something stupid on foreign soil as a veteran, aka a private citizen.
 
michaelskis said:
But wait a minute... what about "Leave No Man Behind?" Is he not as worthy as someone who walked out of his unit in search of the Taliban? Is he not a current member of the armed forces active or not?

Yes, Tahmooressi did something stupid, but it is hypocritical to say yes, bring one guy home and not another.
Click to expand...

Let me put this in picture form:

Mexico

14204886200_4149d10d44_s.jpg
mexican vacation by cityplan_2000, on Flickr

Afghanistan

14391459025_89d2b0e714_s.jpg
afgahn by cityplan_2000, on Flickr

Any questions?
 
Tahmooressi was in a civilian capacity when he fucked up. When you are in civilian capacity, you are subject to the laws wherever you are. He knowingly carried weapons across the border in violation of the law after passing numerous warning signs. To me, this is absolutely no different than had he gone on a drunken binge in Tijuana & ended-up killing or raping someone. We wouldn't be demanding his return to the U.S., now would we? Nope.

If Tahmooressi was ON ASSIGNMENT to Mexico as part of an anti-Cartel initiative, this would be a different discussion. But he wasn't.
 
WSU MUP Student said:
The comparison of Sgt Berghdahl and the circumstances surrounding his capture to Sgt Tahmooressi and the circumstances surrounding his arrest is a laughable one.

Andrew Tahmooressi was no longer on active duty at the time he crossed the border into Mexico weapons that are illegal to have in Mexico. Whether he crossed in to Mexico intentionally or not, there are numerous warnings before you approach the final exit on I-5 warning travelers that they are coming to the border and to exit beforehand unless they intend to cross. As a former Marine, he should have had much more "situational awareness". And I don't care how much of a traffic f*ck up it would cause, if it were me, and I missed every possible exit, and I had guns and wasn't trying to cross the border, there is absolutely no way I'd drive all the way through the border. I'd rather deal with irate CBP agents and a traffic ticket (and maybe getting towed) than a foreign government. And I can guarantee you that the staff working on the U.S. side have had to deal with idiots getting too close to the border and then realizing they did not want to cross, it would just be another day at the office for them.

While I hope that our consuls general in Tijuana and the State Department can work to free Andrew Tahmooressi or make sure he is treated fairly and that the Mexican judicial system follows the rule of law, I have only slightly more than zero f*cks to give on his behalf.
Click to expand...

I grew up just outside San Ysidro and have been through that specific crossing many times and it is very difficult for me to believe anyone could accidentally cross (I think it's impossible that this was an accident). It's also faily well known that small arms transfers are fairly lucrative for anyone willing to drive across the border with a few guns to sell.
 
imaplanner said:
I grew up just outside San Ysidro and have been through that specific crossing many times and it is very difficult for me to believe anyone could accidentally cross (I think it's impossible that this was an accident). It's also faily well known that small arms transfers are fairly lucrative for anyone willing to drive across the border with a few guns to sell.
Click to expand...

In that case, I agree, it is not a good comparison. I still stand by my statement that it was a bad deal. It would have been a bad deal no matter who was in office. Bush should not have sent us over there in the first place.
 
michaelskis said:
In that case, I agree, it is not a good comparison. I still stand by my statement that it was a bad deal. It would have been a bad deal no matter who was in office.
Click to expand...

If this deal was the only way we could get Bergdahl back before we leave Afganistan would you have said no and left him there?
 
“No nation can negotiate with terrorists, for there is no way to make peace with those whose only goal is death.” ~ G.W. Bush

At the same time, the Bush administration arranged an indirect payment to Abu Sayyaf, an al Qaeda-linked Islamic fundamentalist group, of $300,000, as reported a little later by ABC’s John McWethy, the veteran Pentagon correspondent, and even by Fox’s Brent Baier, whose phrasing had it that “the U.S. government facilitated a ransom payment to al Qaeda-linked terrorists" for an American husband-and-wife missionary team, Martin and Gracia Burnham.

Where is the outrage, indeed. The fact the ol' Ollie North is babbling on about this just makes it more surreal. As if we don't remember Iran-Contra. :r:
 
So it looks like Eric Cantor just became a footnote in Congressional history...

I think folks are overblowing the tea party aspect of it though--Jack Trammell was orchestrating quite the effort to encourage his voters to cross-over in the primary & vote for Dave Brat.
 
imaplanner said:
If this deal was the only way we could get Bergdahl back before we leave Afganistan would you have said no and left him there?
Click to expand...

There is always another way.



As for the Eric Cantor story, it is no secret that the Tea Party hated Cantor because he was not much different than the Democrats. The guy who beat him also graduated from Hope College in Michigan.
 
Suburb Repairman said:
So it looks like Eric Cantor just became a footnote in Congressional history...

I think folks are overblowing the tea party aspect of it though--Jack Trammell was orchestrating quite the effort to encourage his voters to cross-over in the primary & vote for Dave Brat.
Click to expand...

Made my night :D though I know Trammell doesn't have much of a chance. (I really dislike Cantor.)
 
ColoGI said:
Chuckle

The Dems obstructed every bill the Dems brought? Who knew?!?!?!?!?!??!?!?!?!?!?!?!?
Click to expand...

(I should have added in terms of big spending, pork rich bills that don't actually help America, and towing the party line at any cost) Most of the other Republicans are just as bad.

The letter behind their name is becoming less and less important as party ideology is just lip service. They all answer to the special interest groups and those with big corporate funding. That is why nothing meaningful that will actually help Americans gets passed.
 
michaelskis said:
(I should have added in terms of big spending, pork rich bills that don't actually help America, and towing the party line at any cost) Most of the other Republicans are just as bad.

The letter behind their name is becoming less and less important as party ideology is just lip service. They all answer to the special interest groups and those with big corporate funding. That is why nothing meaningful that will actually help Americans gets passed.
Click to expand...

And the Tea Partyers aren't any better. They just want their pork to go to their way rather than somebody else's, especially if those somebody elses are poor, female, non-white or Spanish speaking.
 
michaelskis said:
(I should have added in terms of big spending, pork rich bills that don't actually help America, and towing the party line at any cost) Most of the other Republicans are just as bad.

The letter behind their name is becoming less and less important as party ideology is just lip service. They all answer to the special interest groups and those with big corporate funding. That is why nothing meaningful that will actually help Americans gets passed.
Click to expand...

I agree that our politics is broken and our country in decline, and equating a far-right anti-government zealot with Democrats is hilarious! I laffed! Are you here all week?
 
ColoGI said:
I agree that our politics is broken and our country in decline, and equating a far-right anti-government zealot with Democrats is hilarious! I laffed! Are you here all week?
Click to expand...

The only think hilarious is the concept that the extremest republicans are any worse than the extremest democrats. Cantor turned on the tea-party several times and had a delusional concept of immigration.

Linda_D said:
And the Tea Partyers aren't any better. They just want their pork to go to their way rather than somebody else's, especially if those somebody elses are poor, female, non-white or Spanish speaking.
Click to expand...

I agree... which is why I don't trust any of them to do the right thing. They all want to take from some group to give to their special interest projects.
 
Back
Top