# Bowe Bergdahl.



## Hitch

Is this a win or loss for Obama?


----------



## immanuelrx

Hitch said:


> Is this a win or loss for Obama?


It will be portrayed as a win for Obama. If the word within the military community is correct, this is only a win if Bergdahl is put on trial for being a walk about as well as the lives lost looking for him. It won't happen though. Obama isn't going to trade multiple terrorist to bring Bergdahl in for trial. It doesn't matter how certain the evidence is. Too bad.


----------



## SG_67

There's a bit more to this story than meets the eye. There are very credible reports this guy deserted. 

If it's a win, it's very short lived.


----------



## MaxBuck

This case is just so odd, from the get-go. 

The expenditure of military and political capital (not to mention human life) to bring this troubled young man back to US soil just seems ill-spent, though I certainly sympathize with his parents.


----------



## immanuelrx

SG_67 said:


> There's a bit more to this story than meets the eye. There are very credible reports this guy deserted.
> 
> If it's a win, it's very short lived.


The following is supposedly from someone close to the situation. It lines up from what I have heard from fellow soldiers:
We were at OP Mest, Paktika Province, Afghanistan. It was a small outpost where B Co 1-501st INF (Airbone) ran operations out of, just an Infantry platoon and ANA counterparts there. The place was an Afghan graveyard. Bergdahl had been acting a little strange, telling people he wanted to "walk the earth" and kept a little journal talking about how he was meant for better things. No one thought anything about it. He was a little "out there". Next morning he's gone. We search everywhere, and can't find him. He left his weapon, his kit, and other sensitive items. He only took some water, a compass and a knife. We find some afghan kids shortly after who saw an american walking north asking about where the taliban are. We get hits on our voice intercepter that Taliban has him, and we were close. We come to realize that the kid deserted his post, snuck out of camp and sought out Taliban&#8230; to join them. We were in a defensive position at OP Mest, where your focus is to keep people out. He knew where the blind spots were to slip out and that's what he did. It was supposed to be a 4-day mission but turned into several months of active searching. Everyone was spun up to find this guy. News outlets all over the country were putting out false information. It was hard to see, especially when we knew the truth about what happened and we lost good men trying to find him. PFC Matthew Michael Martinek, Staff Sgt. Kurt Robert Curtiss, SSG Clayton Bowen, PFC Morris Walker, SSG Michael Murphrey, 2LT Darryn Andrews, were all KIA from our unit who died looking for Bergdahl. Many others from various units were wounded or killed while actively looking for Bergdahl. Fighting Increased. IEDs and enemy ambushes increased. The Taliban knew that we were looking for him in high numbers and our movements were predictable. Because of Bergdahl, more men were out in danger, and more attacks on friendly camps and positions were conducted while we were out looking for him. His actions impacted the region more than anyone wants to admit. There is also no way to know what he told the Taliban: Our movements, locations, tactics, weak points on vehicles and other things for the enemy to exploit are just a few possibilities. The Government knows full well that he deserted. It looks bad and is a good propaganda piece for the Taliban. They refuse to acknowledge it. Hell they even promoted him to Sergeant which makes me sick. I feel for his family who only want their son/brother back. They don't know the truth, or refuse to acknowledge it as well. What he did affected his family and his whole town back home, who don't know the truth. Either way what matters is that good men died because of him. He has been lying on all those Taliban videos about everything since his "capture". If he ever returns, he should be tried under the UCMJ for being a deserter and judged for what he did. Bergdahl is not a hero, he is not a soldier or an Infantryman. He failed his brothers. Now, sons and daughters are growing up without their fathers who died for him and he will have to face that truth someday.


----------



## Hitch

PFC Morris Walker, Staff Sgt. Kurt Curtiss, Staff Sgt. Michael Murphrey, 2nd Lt. Darryn Andrews & PFC Matthew Martinek.  Five who lost their lives in search of Bowe Bergdahl.


----------



## vpkozel

It seems to be an extremely complex situation with a dearth of facts at the moment, so of course both sides are jumping to conclusions and trying to paint the other as total loons.

As to the original question, there are too many sides to say that is a win or not a win.

It is a win in that we brought a soldier home, even if he is a deserter and will stand trial once he gets here
It is not a win in that we freed some pretty bad people from Guantanamo to make it all happen

As a father I am happy for his parents and family, because no matter what he may or may not have done, they are going to love him and now they know he is safe.


----------



## Hitch

immanuelrx said:


> The following is supposedly from someone close to the situation. It lines up from what I have heard from fellow soldiers:
> We were at OP Mest, Paktika Province, Afghanistan. It was a small outpost where B Co 1-501st INF (Airbone) ran operations out of, just an Infantry platoon and ANA counterparts there. The place was an Afghan graveyard. Bergdahl had been acting a little strange, telling people he wanted to "walk the earth" and kept a little journal talking about how he was meant for better things. No one thought anything about it. He was a little "out there". Next morning he's gone. We search everywhere, and can't find him. He left his weapon, his kit, and other sensitive items. He only took some water, a compass and a knife. We find some afghan kids shortly after who saw an american walking north asking about where the taliban are. We get hits on our voice intercepter that Taliban has him, and we were close. We come to realize that the kid deserted his post, snuck out of camp and sought out Taliban&#8230; to join them. We were in a defensive position at OP Mest, where your focus is to keep people out. He knew where the blind spots were to slip out and that's what he did. It was supposed to be a 4-day mission but turned into several months of active searching. Everyone was spun up to find this guy. News outlets all over the country were putting out false information. It was hard to see, especially when we knew the truth about what happened and we lost good men trying to find him. PFC Matthew Michael Martinek, Staff Sgt. Kurt Robert Curtiss, SSG Clayton Bowen, PFC Morris Walker, SSG Michael Murphrey, 2LT Darryn Andrews, were all KIA from our unit who died looking for Bergdahl. Many others from various units were wounded or killed while actively looking for Bergdahl. Fighting Increased. IEDs and enemy ambushes increased. The Taliban knew that we were looking for him in high numbers and our movements were predictable. Because of Bergdahl, more men were out in danger, and more attacks on friendly camps and positions were conducted while we were out looking for him. His actions impacted the region more than anyone wants to admit. There is also no way to know what he told the Taliban: Our movements, locations, tactics, weak points on vehicles and other things for the enemy to exploit are just a few possibilities. The Government knows full well that he deserted. It looks bad and is a good propaganda piece for the Taliban. They refuse to acknowledge it. Hell they even promoted him to Sergeant which makes me sick. I feel for his family who only want their son/brother back. They don't know the truth, or refuse to acknowledge it as well. What he did affected his family and his whole town back home, who don't know the truth. Either way what matters is that good men died because of him. He has been lying on all those Taliban videos about everything since his "capture". If he ever returns, he should be tried under the UCMJ for being a deserter and judged for what he did. Bergdahl is not a hero, he is not a soldier or an Infantryman. He failed his brothers. Now, sons and daughters are growing up without their fathers who died for him and he will have to face that truth someday.


Thats what we've been hearing but true to form when ABC reported on it this evening what and when the Commander In Chief knew about Bergahl's true status was never brought up. Personally I believe its at least a 50/50 chance Oboma has kept this guy in waiting for the best possible political gain. Or will he ,again, claim ignorance?


----------



## Hitch

vpkozel said:


> It seems to be an extremely complex situation with a dearth of facts at the moment, so of course both sides are jumping to conclusions and trying to paint the other as total loons.
> 
> As to the original question, there are too many sides to say that is a win or not a win.
> 
> It is a win in that we brought a soldier home, even if he is a deserter and will stand trial once he gets here
> It is not a win in that we freed some pretty bad people from Guantanamo to make it all happen
> 
> As a father I am happy for his parents and family, because no matter what he may or may not have done, they are going to love him and now they know he is safe.


I think you answered it VP. Clearly the Rose Garden setting , the timing etc were carefully designed and in your case despite all the off stage labors you remain unconvinced Obama gained anything. Unless we hear of those freed terrorists suddenly exploding only the most sycophantic , the most sincere of the pumpkin patch, will defend this one.


----------



## MaxBuck

Hitch said:


> I think you answered it VP. Clearly the Rose Garden setting , the timing etc were carefully designed and in your case despite all the off stage labors you remain unconvinced Obama gained anything. Unless we hear of those freed terrorists suddenly exploding only the most sycophantic , the most sincere of the pumpkin patch, will defend this one.


I think the only thing worse than the POTUS capitalizing politically on Bergdahl's return would be the GOP capitalizing on rumormongering as to the POTUS's motivations.

So far I see little evidence that Obama wants this whole deal to be front-and-center.


----------



## immanuelrx

MaxBuck said:


> I think the only thing worse than the POTUS capitalizing politically on Bergdahl's return would be the GOP capitalizing on rumormongering as to the POTUS's motivations.
> 
> So far I see little evidence that Obama wants this whole deal to be front-and-center.


There has to be more to the whole thing than as seen in the public. I doubt Obama made this move without knowing the situation. He knew the backstory about Bergdahl taking off the way he did. You don't make this type of move without research. Even Obama wouldn't make the mistake of not doing so. There is some gain that outweighs any rumor mongering, GOP or no GOP. That gain is more than just getting this guy back. 5 terrorists? There is something going on that we don't know and won't.


----------



## Hitch

MaxBuck said:


> I think the only thing worse than the POTUS capitalizing politically on Bergdahl's return would be the GOP capitalizing on rumormongering as to the POTUS's motivations.
> 
> So far I see little evidence that Obama wants this whole deal to be front-and-center.


 Well that explains the Rose Garden circus. Who would notice ? You're right Obama probably didnt even know the cameras were there ;until he read it in the paper.


----------



## MaxBuck

Hitch said:


> ... Rose Garden circus.


Who but a Conservative would call a simple press conference a "Rose Garden Circus?"

There was nothing untoward, IMO, about the press conference itself; my concern is with the resources expended in favor of this young man. I hope that there is an intelligence value associated with his extrication; otherwise it seems like a fool's errand. But I'm not optimistic given Obama's foreign policy record.


----------



## Hitch

MaxBuck said:


> Who but a Conservative would call a simple press conference a "Rose Garden Circus?"
> 
> There was nothing untoward, IMO, about the press conference itself; my concern is with the resources expended in favor of this young man. I hope that there is an intelligence value associated with his extrication; otherwise it seems like a fool's errand. But I'm not optimistic given Obama's foreign policy record.


 You're right again Max. A simple Rose Garden press conference in front of the worlds largest press corp is a perfect place to keep things quiet. Who was that black guy there anyway?





> _So far I see little evidence that Obama wants this whole deal to be front-and-center._




Private individuals are often personally escorted, to the simple Rose Garden press conferences, by the President . I got it, it just came to me . Obama figured that since so many folks, hundreds from Idaho , share the podium with him the Bergdahl's would be lost in the crowd. Wow. I cant understand how I missed it.


----------



## Shaver

One thing is for certain, the father of this soldier is not doing much to dispel the myth of the hillbilly yankee, prevalent in many parts of the world.


----------



## Shaver

I miss the days when the American stance was clearer........


----------



## immanuelrx

Shaver said:


> One thing is for certain, the father of this soldier is not doing much to dispel the myth of the hillbilly yankee, prevalent in many parts of the world.


Come on Shaver, that is not the only way way we are viewed on your part of the world:


----------



## immanuelrx

Shaver said:


> I miss the days when the American stance was clearer........


Don't worry Shaver, it wasn't without a good reason why we negotiated with terrorists. Because of Bergdahl, we will finally know the location of Saddam Hussein!!!.....What? Already dead? Curveball?...Crap....Well at least he will help us finally locate Osama Bin Laden!!!!......Also dead?!?!...Give me a break here!......Noah's Ark?...No?........Atlantis?...Something?.........I got nothing.


----------



## Shaver

immanuelrx said:


> Come on Shaver, that is not the only way way we are viewed on your part of the world:


Not me, my friend - I like America and I like Americans. :thumbs-up:

Now - if justonemore were not banned from logging on by his wife, he would be having a field day with this news item!


----------



## Earl of Ormonde

The Devil's Advocate checking in!


Couldn't the "he went off to join the Taliban" report from his infantry unit simply be a CIA or DIA cover story, so that the US govt won't be under pressure to send out more rescue teams to rescue a deserter/convert to the enemy?

Just sayin' ..........I mean he may well have been genuinely taken off guard by a Taliban unit.

However, I find it highly unlikely that one soldier dissapeared like that without a firefight or other disturbance at the base. I personally believe the report that he was a flake & wandered off to join the Mujahideen!


----------



## SG_67

The POTUS made it a "Rose Garden circus" by coming out with mom, hippie dad and basically turning it into a Rose Garden circus. This could have been announced by the Secretary of Defense or the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs. 

The POTUS's staff should have done more homework behind the scenes and prepped dad to cool it with the Pashtun lingo. No need for that. I don't know what it's like to have a child in combat, let alone one that has been taken prisoner (assuming the benefit of the doubt), but there are YouTube videos of dad on some strange rants. 

There should have been proper staff work before putting the Boss out there for potential embarrassment. 

As for the truth? The people closest to him probably know best. It's not just one person saying that he deserted. There's also emails back and forth between Bowe and dad which are odd at best. 

Then there's the matter of the trade. Five high level guys? Really? Who negotiated this? Why the secrecy? Where were the checks and balances? 

The more this story stays out there, the more odd it seems.


----------



## Chouan

immanuelrx said:


> That gain is more than just getting this guy back. *5 terrorists*? There is something going on that we don't know and won't.


Really? Or five people being held without evidence in an illegal, in American Law, prison. If members of the Taliban, they are five people who were defending their country against a foreign aggressor.


----------



## Shaver

Chouan said:


> Really? Or five people being held without evidence in an illegal, in American Law, prison. If members of the Taliban, they are five people who were defending their country against a foreign aggressor.


----------



## SG_67

Chouan said:


> Really? Or five people being held without evidence in an illegal, in American Law, prison. If members of the Taliban, they are five people who were defending their country against a foreign aggressor.


Really? Defending their country? What country? Afghanis don't even think of it that way. They have tribal allegiance before any sort of concept of national unity.

Were these five soldiers? What unit were they with? Were they wearing the uniform of their country? Terrorists and bandits don't count as soldiers. The fact that they've been kept alive is merciful enough.

By the way, what is illegal about Guantanamo Bay? I've never really understood this. This is a serious question. What is illegal about the prison in Guantanamo?


----------



## Shaver

SG_67 said:


> Really? Defending their country? What country? Afghanis don't even think of it that way. They have tribal allegiance before any sort of concept of national unity.
> 
> Were these five soldiers? What unit were they with? Were they wearing the uniform of their country? Terrorists and bandits don't count as soldiers. The fact that they've been kept alive is merciful enough.
> 
> By the way, what is illegal about Guantanamo Bay? I've never really understood this. This is a serious question. * What is illegal about the prison in Guantanamo*?


Perhaps when you are rounded up, arrested without warrant, imprisoned indefinately without charge or trial, interrogated in ways that violate even the most basic human rights and constitute what is considered torture by civilised men, denied any vestige of due legal process, you may find you are able to answer to that question?


----------



## Chouan

SG_67 said:


> Really? Defending their country? What country? Afghanis don't even think of it that way. They have tribal allegiance before any sort of concept of national unity.


To an Afghan his valley is his country, even his part of a valley. Does an Afghan need to accept an American's definition of country before he can defend what is his? How would Americans feel if soldiers of a foreign army took power in their country, or their state? If a crowd of Islamic soldiers arrived in the US, invited by a President that you didn't vote for, and took control of your town, seized your property to build bases, walked armed about your streets, shooting people that they didn't like the look of, using air strikes on places and groups that they didn't like the look of? Would you accept it? or fight back?



SG_67 said:


> Were these five soldiers? What unit were they with? Were they wearing the uniform of their country? Terrorists and bandits don't count as soldiers. The fact that they've been kept alive is merciful enough.


Perhaps, using the Revolution as a paradigm, you could call them _brigands_ and _scelerats_ as well. Perhaps the British army in 1776 onwards should have indefinitely imprisoned, and tortured, the "terrorists" and "bandits" that they were fighting. What is the uniform of their country? Of their army? In any case, if you have evidence of their guilt of war crimes you could try them for those crimes. Only you don't, otherwise you would have rather then holding them illegally without trial. Think of how Americans reacted towards Britain's use of Internment in Northern Ireland. Did you view that as reasonable?



SG_67 said:


> By the way, what is illegal about Guantanamo Bay? I've never really understood this. This is a serious question. What is illegal about the prison in Guantanamo?


I think that Shaver answered your question quite eloquently enough.


----------



## eagle2250

Regardless of whether Chouan chooses to consider the five terrorists as patriots on not, the organization which they represent certainly qualifies as one openly embracing terrorism and committing terrorist acts against even their own people. Is not the Taliban an organization that has called for and in fact has committed acts of terrorism (maiming and murder) against the female members of their society, choosing to simply pursue an education and has condemned to death young Afghan females who objected to being raped by grizzled old males in their society who chose to carry out their personal perversions against the aforementioned young women. The five released prisoners and the organization with which they are affiliated don't fit my definition of a patriot(s)!


----------



## Shaver

eagle2250 said:


> Regardless of whether Chouan chooses to consider the five terrorists as patriots on not, the organization which they represent certainly qualifies as one openly embracing terrorism and committing terrorist acts against even their own people. Is not the Taliban an organization that has called for and in fact has committed acts of terrorism (maiming and murder) against the female members of their society, choosing to simply pursue an education and has condemned to death young Afghan females who objected to being raped by grizzled old males in their society who chose to carry out their personal perversions against the aforementioned young women. The five released prisoners and the organization with which they are affiliated don't fit my definition of a patriot(s)!


It is proper to disdain any culture that systematically subjugates females. It is proper to disdain any government that acts in an unlawful (unethical, even) manner. There is no dichotomy of thought required to subscribe to both positions.


----------



## eagle2250

^^I disagree with your conclusion. The Taliban was/were not invited into power by the Afghan tribal leadership, but rather forced their way to power through acts of terror, attacks against tribal leaders and their families and against Afghan citizens in general. Conceding to be run by a bunch of criminal thugs, rather than being maimed or killed was apparently preferable to the Afghans, but that doesn't make it much of a choice and it certainly doesn't absolve the five released prisoners of their criminal/ terrorist character!


----------



## Hitch

Shaver said:


> Perhaps when you are rounded up, arrested without warrant, imprisoned indefinately without charge or trial, interrogated in ways that violate even the most basic human rights and constitute what is considered torture by civilised men, denied any vestige of due legal process, you may find you are able to answer to that question?


Legally the out of uniform combatants are subject to execution ,without trial. We grant them most of the rights reserved for enemy soldiers, and that is far beyond what is required.But the question here is whether the whole story and way the WH handled it will help or hinder Obama, how 's it look from across the pond?


----------



## Hitch

Shaver said:


> One thing is for certain, the father of this soldier is not doing much to dispel the myth of the hillbilly yankee, prevalent in many parts of the world.


Every hillbilly I know often quotes the Koran ,in Arabic.


----------



## Shaver

eagle2250 said:


> ^^I disagree with your conclusion. The Taliban was/were not invited into power by the Afghan tribal leadership, but rather forced their way to power through acts of terror, attacks against tribal leaders and their families and against Afghan citizens in general. Conceding to be run by a bunch of criminal thugs, rather than being maimed or killed was apparently preferable to the Afghans, but that doesn't make it much of a choice and it certainly doesn't absolve the five released prisoners of their criminal/ terrorist characters!


Ah Eagle, my friend, I believe that my pithy mode of expression may have occluded my meaning - for which I apologise. I was hoping to convey this: even if the Taliban are considered to be beneath contempt, still it is improper for civilised men to treat them accordingly.


----------



## Shaver

Hitch said:


> Every hillbilly I know often quotes the Koran ,in Arabic.


It does not surprise me in the least that you know a few hillbillies. :devil:


----------



## Shaver

Hitch said:


> Legally the out of uniform combatants are subject to execution ,without trial. We grant them most of the rights reserved for enemy soldiers, and that is far beyond what is required.


And your definition of combatant? Any bearded swarthy-skinned male called Mohammed? 

Anyway the United States Supreme Court disagrees with your assertion - cf Justice Kennedy 2008


----------



## Shaver

Hitch said:


> Legally the out of uniform combatants are subject to execution ,without trial. We grant them most of the rights reserved for enemy soldiers, and that is far beyond what is required.But the question here is whether the whole story and way the WH handled it will help or hinder Obama, how 's it look from across the pond?


Sorry Hitch, just noticed your addendum. Frankly the whole situation seems *very* fishy indeed. The original announcement of the exchange was astonishing in itself, it being so uncharacteristic of U.S. policy. But now with this the highly unusual back-story filtering through.....


----------



## Earl of Ormonde

As Shaver said Afghanistan isn't a country it is a man-made geographical construction combining tribal regions as was Pakistan when it was created in 1947.

The name Pakistan came from the Muslim nationalist and Cambridge Choudhary Rahmat Ali.
*
P*unjab
*A*ghania
*K*ashmir

And he did it that way because PAK while an acronym also menas "pure" so Pakistan means "country of the pure"

The I was added to ease pronunciation between PAK and STAN, the suffix *Stan* means "place where one stays" i.e. homeland or country in its root language of Iranian (formerly Persian / Farsi) And *sthan* in Sanskrit ismply meant place

The idea that all the letters in Pakistan refer to regions is a hoax, actually an after-construction after the ocuntry had already been named and the name explained i.e. this is wrong, this is a hoax: *P*unjab, *A*fghania, *K*ashmir, *I*ndus Valley, *S*indh and *T*urkharistan, *A*fghanistan and Balochista*n*.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde

Hitch said:


> Legally the out of uniform combatants are subject to execution ,without trial.


Legally? Really? According to whose laws? US troops were in their country thosands of miles from the USA, these Islamists were not in the USA! So using your logic then it is perfectly okay for Islamists to apply Sharia law to captured US troops and behead them all in accrodance with their law. Fine, just as long as we're clear on that.


----------



## Chouan

eagle2250 said:


> Regardless of whether Chouan chooses to consider the five terrorists as patriots on not, the organization which they represent certainly qualifies as one openly embracing terrorism and committing terrorist acts against even their own people. Is not the Taliban an organization that has called for and in fact has committed acts of terrorism (maiming and murder) against the female members of their society, choosing to simply pursue an education and has condemned to death young Afghan females who objected to being raped by grizzled old males in their society who chose to carry out their personal perversions against the aforementioned young women. The five released prisoners and the organization with which they are affiliated don't fit my definition of a patriot(s)!


I'm sure that they have. But by what right does the West, Britain, America and others, to define what is or isn't right in another's society? I, personally, find the Taliban, and much of Afghan society odious. However, I don't think that I have the right to go to that or any other country with guns in my hands and tell them how to conduct their society. I'm interested to learn what you define as a patriot. I was under the impression that a patriot is "someone who feels a strong support for their country.". I think you'll find that the Taliban, odious in outlook as they might be fit that definition very well.


----------



## Chouan

eagle2250 said:


> ^^I disagree with your conclusion. The Taliban was/were not invited into power by the Afghan tribal leadership, but rather forced their way to power through acts of terror, attacks against tribal leaders and their families and against Afghan citizens in general. Conceding to be run by a bunch of criminal thugs, rather than being maimed or killed was apparently preferable to the Afghans, but that doesn't make it much of a choice and it certainly doesn't absolve the five released prisoners of their criminal/ terrorist character!


They weren't, of course. They were a federation of Islamic warlords that won the civil war that followed the Russian abandonment of Afghanistan. They are no more, or less, a legitimate government of Afghanistan than any other warlord, be it the Warlord who invited the US intervention, or Hamid Karzai, the warlord that the West is backing as the "legitimate" government. Is there any evidence of the fives' criminal/terrorist character? You seem to suggest that their defence of their own country against armed occupation is inherently criminal/terrorist. Does that mean that any acts involving violence against a foreign military occupying power in one's own country is a criminal/terrorist act?


----------



## vpkozel

Chouan said:


> They weren't, of course. They were a federation of Islamic warlords that won the civil war that followed the Russian abandonment of Afghanistan. They are no more, or less, a legitimate government of Afghanistan than any other warlord, be it the Warlord who invited the US intervention, or Hamid Karzai, the warlord that the West is backing as the "legitimate" government. Is there any evidence of the fives' criminal/terrorist character? You seem to suggest that their defence of their own country against armed occupation is inherently criminal/terrorist. Does that mean that any acts involving violence against a foreign military occupying power in one's own country is a criminal/terrorist act?


It sounds to me like you are classifying them as enemy combatants under the Geneva Convention, would that be accurate?


----------



## Tilton

Mullah Mohammed Fazl, one of the inmates released, is currently wanted by the UN for his role in several massacres of Afghan Shi'ites. Sounds like a generally nice guy who only took up arms to defend his valley from being taken over by the invading US troops.


----------



## eagle2250

Chouan said:


> They weren't, of course. They were a federation of Islamic warlords that won the civil war that followed the Russian abandonment of Afghanistan. They are no more, or less, a legitimate government of Afghanistan than any other warlord, be it the Warlord who invited the US intervention, or Hamid Karzai, the warlord that the West is backing as the "legitimate" government. Is there any evidence of the fives' criminal/terrorist character? You seem to suggest that their defence of their own country against armed occupation is inherently criminal/terrorist. Does that mean that any acts involving violence against a foreign military occupying power in one's own country is a criminal/terrorist act?


Chouan: If the Taliban's claim of legitimacy as the governing authority in Afghanistan is as solid as you think it to be, why did only three nations (Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and the UAE) ever offer them diplomatic recognition. The bottom line is they forced their way to power and held on to same through a continuing series of criminal/terrorist acts against their own countrymen. They represented a decidedly cruel, but still a minority segment of the Afghan population. In your earlier post you asked what my understanding of a "Patriot" was. According to Webster's Dictionary a patriot is "a person who loves, supports and defends his or her country and it's interests and does so with devotion." I'm comfortable with Webster's definition, but fail to see how the Taliban fits that description. They represent and terrorize their own citizens to stay in control and to impose their sick and twisted perspectives on religion and social controls on the victims of their oppression.

All five of the terrorists traded in this present fiasco of a prisoner swap formerly held senior leadership positions in what is clearly a terrorist organization.


----------



## SG_67

Chouan said:


> To an Afghan his valley is his country, even his part of a valley. Does an Afghan need to accept an American's definition of country before he can defend what is his? How would Americans feel if soldiers of a foreign army took power in their country, or their state? If a crowd of Islamic soldiers arrived in the US, invited by a President that you didn't vote for, and took control of your town, seized your property to build bases, walked armed about your streets, shooting people that they didn't like the look of, using air strikes on places and groups that they didn't like the look of? Would you accept it? or fight back?


I can't speak for what other cultures would feel like. Quite frankly, I really don't care. The world isn't a fair place. Too bad for the Afghans if they've put up with years of abuse. I would wager that the typical afghan is likely better off, even if marginally, post Taliban vs. pre. We took action because it was in our national interest to do so. That's the only thing that matters. I could care less how the indigenous population would feel about it. On can argue the logic of the decisions that were made post invasion and how we went about trying to rebuild the country, but the actual invasion, I have no problems with. That the status quo powers saw it as a threat to their control, oh well.



> Perhaps, using the Revolution as a paradigm, you could call them _brigands_ and _scelerats_ as well. Perhaps the British army in 1776 onwards should have indefinitely imprisoned, and tortured, the "terrorists" and "bandits" that they were fighting. What is the uniform of their country? Of their army? In any case, if you have evidence of their guilt of war crimes you could try them for those crimes. Only you don't, otherwise you would have rather then holding them illegally without trial. Think of how Americans reacted towards Britain's use of Internment in Northern Ireland. Did you view that as reasonable?


I'm all for trying them for war crimes and hanging them. I would prefer that, this way we could stop talking about Gitmo so much. As for how the Brits treated the Irish, I'm neither British, nor Irish so I could care less. How nations choose to settle their disputes is their business. If it affects our national interests, then I'll chime in. As for the British and how they should have reacted to Colonial insurrections, I think it's a bit more complicated than that. First off, we declared independence and formed a government and raised a uniformed army.



> I think that Shaver answered your question quite eloquently enough.


Actually he didn't. He speculated and that's hardly an answer. He gave the typical answer about illegal detention (illegal in whose eyes?), no arrest warrants, and so on. If you want to see inhumanity visit 3rd world prisons. Guantanamo detainees are afforded books, meals, healthcare, clean facilities. They are afforded communal time to pray together, religious materials and clergy.

I assume he's referring to water boarding. This was done on a limited basis and while I don't consider it torture, if did not extend beyond 2003 and it was performed on I think 2-3 high level Al Qaeda folks. I suppose it's easy to look back with hindsight but I'm wondering how people would have felt if we had been attacked again and had not taken action to prevent it due to dithering about pouring water over someone's face.


----------



## vpkozel

Chouan said:


> Perhaps, using the Revolution as a paradigm, you could call them _brigands_ and _scelerats_ as well. Perhaps the British army in 1776 onwards should have indefinitely imprisoned, and tortured, the "terrorists" and "bandits" that they were fighting. What is the uniform of their country? Of their army? In any case, if you have evidence of their guilt of war crimes you could try them for those crimes. Only you don't, otherwise you would have rather then holding them illegally without trial. Think of how Americans reacted towards Britain's use of Internment in Northern Ireland. Did you view that as reasonable? .


While it is understandable that the Revolutionary period is not as popular in the UK as it is in the US, I would have expected someone who tried to make that comparison to realize that is precisely what the British did. As many or more US soldiers died as of starvation or disease while a POW as died in combat.


----------



## SG_67

vpkozel said:


> While it is understandable that the Revolutionary period is not as popular in the UK as it is in the US, I would have expected someone who tried to make that comparison to realize that is precisely what the British did. As many or more US soldiers died as of starvation or disease while a POW as died in combat.


I'm always amused by those from foreign countries that comment on our foreign policy and how we handle of national interests.

Let's bear in mind the gross atrocities committed in colonial India just a few generations ago.

I'm not suggesting that England is an evil country, but I can't really think of anything on par with the body count of British colonial occupation.


----------



## justonemore

nobody has bothered to mention that this guy was seen as "losing it" well in advance. Would it not have been better to get him out on a "section 8" compared to the current situation? Does the military bear no responsibility for not realising that a problem was in the making? Last time I checked, the U.S. military is responsible for the health & wellbeing of its soldiers. In this day and age of soldiering, is it not understood that you need to pull the weak links before they become problematic to themselves, others, and the mission in general? If the guy was cracking up, then it is the responsibility of the chain of command to identify the problem (and fix it) before it gets out of hand(as did this). As a former soldier, I wouldn't want to have to rely on him for my security and safety nor would I want to be responsible for him. The military failed everyone in this situation. The guy lost it, they are responsible for his health/well being.. Sad enough, the reality is that was their responsibility to go get the guy. Others are rumoured to have died for this. It bites. I agree. But how far should the military shirk their honor and responsibility before they can no longer be considered as either honorable or responsible? They got him back and now there's plenty of talk about trying him through the military justice system. That's what UCMJ is for. What the future holds, I don't know, but it seems that he'll be tried by all the major courts (republican, democrat, military, and public) before he actually has his day in court or even a chance to speak.


----------



## justonemore

SG_67 said:


> I'm always amused by those from foreign countries that comment on our foreign policy and how we handle of national interests.
> 
> Let's bear in mind the gross atrocities committed in colonial India just a few generations ago.
> 
> I'm not suggesting that England is an evil country, but I can't really think of anything on par with the body count of British colonial occupation.


So.. Just a few generations ago? Therefore the U.S. should be considered as to its policies a few générations ago? Not sure they match well. A few générations ago Israel couldn't be found on map. Times and global politics change. Wouldn't current Policy of any given nation be a better guideline?


----------



## Chouan

vpkozel said:


> While it is understandable that the Revolutionary period is not as popular in the UK as it is in the US, I would have expected someone who tried to make that comparison to realize that is precisely what the British did. As many or more US soldiers died as of starvation or disease while a POW as died in combat.


Held prisoners indefinitely, and tortured them? Any evidence for that? As far as US soldiers dying of starvation and disease whilst being held, I would suggest that far more died of starvation and disease whilst serving in the US army than died in combat as well. It was a common situation in all armies of the time, with combat deaths rarely being more than 10% of the total. If you look at the attrition rates of armies at that time that weren't even in combat you'd see that death rates from disease were always very high.


----------



## Chouan

SG_67 said:


> I'm always amused by those from foreign countries that comment on our foreign policy and how we handle of national interests.
> 
> Let's bear in mind the gross atrocities committed in colonial India just a few generations ago.


Remind me of them. I can't think of anything that could be called "gross atrocities" that occurred in British India after the Mutiny. I wouldn't describe the 1850's as a "few generations ago" in any case.



SG_67 said:


> I'm not suggesting that England is an evil country,


I assume you mean Britain?



SG_67 said:


> but I can't really think of anything on par with the body count of British colonial occupation.


Can't you? I suggest that you look at the record of the US in the US with the deliberate and nearly effective genocide of the indigenous population. I'm unaware of such attempts at deliberate genocide by Britain anywhere in its Empire.


----------



## jsbrugg

I haven't read too much on this, but I don't believe that the US government has classified the Taliban as a terrorist organization. My understanding is that they are considered a religious-based political faction that were supporting various other terrorist groups - hence the justification for their overthrow. We are pretty much treating them like a belligerent in a civil war, thus it was more of a POW swap than a prisoner exchange like we have seen in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. If the prisoners were part of Al-Qaeda, then I could see there being a much bigger uproar over negotiating with terrorists.

I do think President Obama grossly underestimated the controversy this would create and I think that is a bigger black-eye for him than the actual exchange. We're in a highly polarized partisan environment and while I think the actual swap has a little controversy, it probably would have blown over had he not failed to give the 30 day notice to congress or had there not been the controversy surrounding Bergdahl's disappearance.


----------



## SG_67

Chouan said:


> Remind me of them. I can't think of anything that could be called "gross atrocities" that occurred in British India after the Mutiny. I wouldn't describe the 1850's as a "few generations ago" in any case.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jallianwala_Bagh_massacre

Ok...sorry it was more than a couple of generations ago, but certainly not ancient history.



> I assume you mean Britain?


Again, forgive my ignoring the difference. Yes, Britain vs. England. I understand the difference. Being a Yank I often lump all y'all together!...ic12337:



> Can't you? I suggest that you look at the record of the US in the US with the deliberate and nearly effective genocide of the indigenous population. I'm unaware of such attempts at deliberate genocide by Britain anywhere in its Empire.


The American's weren't attempting to colonize the west. We were expanding our country. Was it brutal and at times shameful, of course! British colonists were just as brutal when confronted with Australian aboriginals.

I don't care to debate history though as this is not the point of the thread. We're talking about the here and now. I hardly think of the way we treat Gitmo detainees or our treatment of Afghans as brutal or inhumane.


----------



## justonemore

SG_67 said:


> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jallianwala_Bagh_massacre
> 
> Ok...sorry it was more than a couple of generations ago, but certainly not ancient history.
> 
> Again, forgive my ignoring the difference. Yes, Britain vs. England. I understand the difference. Being a Yank I often lump all y'all together!...ic12337:
> 
> The American's weren't attempting to colonize the west. We were expanding our country. Was it brutal and at times shameful, of course! British colonists were just as brutal when confronted with Australian aboriginals.
> 
> I don't care to debate history though as this is not the point of the thread. We're talking about the here and now. I hardly think of the way we treat Gitmo detainees or our treatment of Afghans as brutal or inhumane.


So if they treated captives in the same manner, you wouldn't consider it as inhumane or brutal? Such treatment of American soldiers would be justifiable?

Please title yourself correctly as an "Ignorant Yank" vs just "a Yank". I doubt the rest of your fellow 300 million U.S. citizens want to be lumped in with your chosen laziness/stupidity on such matters.


----------



## SG_67

justonemore said:


> So if they treated captives in the same manner, you wouldn't consider it as inhumane or brutal? Such treatment of American soldiers would be justifiable?


???? I'm afraid I don't quite understand your point. Who is "THEY" and what is the "SAME MANNER"?


----------



## justonemore

SG_67 said:


> ???? I'm afraid I don't quite understand your point. Who is "THEY" and what is the "SAME MANNER"?





SG_67 said:


> I hardly think of the way we treat Gitmo detainees or our treatment of Afghans as brutal or inhumane.


Try to deconstruct your own writing and figure it out.


----------



## SG_67

^ Or perhaps you could try not being so cryptic and just ask a question, or better yet, make a point. This is why I don't like responding to your posts or replies to my posts.


----------



## justonemore

SG_67 said:


> ^ Or perhaps you could try not being so cryptic and just ask a question, or better yet, make a point. This is why I don't like responding to your posts or replies to my posts.


Yes. I'm quite sure you'd like your posts to go without comment. But.. As you've gone out of your way to start name calling in the past, it's a bit hard to pretend that we'll all ignore your nonsense in the present.

Again. The question concerned asked if you'd find it ethical for enemy combatants to do the same to U.S. or Israeli soldiers. You have heard of "the golden rule"? Do unto others & all that jazz? Or was your point that it's only o.k. for the U.S. (and its allies) to do such things? As waterboarding isn't torture (according to you), I suppose you'd be willing to get strapped in a few times? It's just fine and dandy if our boys experience the same treatment? With such thoughts, it's certainly clear that you never spent any time putting your neck on the line in service to the country you reside in.


----------



## SG_67

^ Well I suppose that makes perfect sense! Sorry to have bothered you.


----------



## vpkozel

Chouan said:


> Held prisoners indefinitely, and tortured them? Any evidence for that? As far as US soldiers dying of starvation and disease whilst being held, I would suggest that far more died of starvation and disease whilst serving in the US army than died in combat as well. It was a common situation in all armies of the time, with combat deaths rarely being more than 10% of the total. If you look at the attrition rates of armies at that time that weren't even in combat you'd see that death rates from disease were always very high.


Yes, they were held indefinitely, as is generally the norm as POWs are generally held until the end of hostilities.

I am not aware of any mass torturing though. Of course, I am also not aware of any mass torturing at Gitmo.

Perhaps you missed this question in all of the clutter, so I would ask it again.



vpkozel said:


> It sounds to me like you are classifying them as enemy combatants under the Geneva Convention, would that be accurate?


----------



## vpkozel

And while I love history, the British treatment of Indians in India, nor American treatment of Indians in America, nor British treatment of American prisoners during the Revolutionary War has nothing to do with the matter at hand.


----------



## 32rollandrock

justonemore said:


> nobody has bothered to mention that this guy was seen as "losing it" well in advance. Would it not have been better to get him out on a "section 8" compared to the current situation? Does the military bear no responsibility for not realising that a problem was in the making? Last time I checked, the U.S. military is responsible for the health & wellbeing of its soldiers. In this day and age of soldiering, is it not understood that you need to pull the weak links before they become problematic to themselves, others, and the mission in general? If the guy was cracking up, then it is the responsibility of the chain of command to identify the problem (and fix it) before it gets out of hand(as did this). As a former soldier, I wouldn't want to have to rely on him for my security and safety nor would I want to be responsible for him. The military failed everyone in this situation. The guy lost it, they are responsible for his health/well being.. Sad enough, the reality is that was their responsibility to go get the guy. Others are rumoured to have died for this. It bites. I agree. But how far should the military shirk their honor and responsibility before they can no longer be considered as either honorable or responsible? They got him back and now there's plenty of talk about trying him through the military justice system. That's what UCMJ is for. What the future holds, I don't know, but it seems that he'll be tried by all the major courts (republican, democrat, military, and public) before he actually has his day in court or even a chance to speak.


This is the best answer.

At the risk of sending Hitch into a conundrum, is it possible that Obama might--just might--have done something here because he thought that it was the right thing to do? From what I've read, the guy was showing all kinds of signs of breaking down. He was aloof, had sent all his belongings home, was staring off into space and talking about hiking to China. I don't see any political upside to what the president did, in fact, quite the opposite. But Obama did it anyway. Now, it's fair to argue whether what he did was the correct course of action. But to always, always, always bring up politics, as if everything Obama does is done with an eye toward the next election? I think that's going overboard, at least in this case. I'm not arguing that there isn't a political component to a lot, if not most, of what a president--any president--does. But to constantly fixate on it gets tiresome.

For now, at least, I'm going to assume that Obama saw a family in pain and tried to ease that pain by bringing the young man home. Again, we can debate whether it was the right thing to do. We should also remember that GOP operatives connected this guy's former colleagues in arms with the media, and with lightning speed, which I find a bit interesting.


----------



## SG_67

^ It's never really been a question of his motives. He may well have been well intentioned and I'm not one to ascribe evil and selfish motives to everyone.

It's a question of judgment. It may have been the "right thing to do" in his mind, but was it in the national interest? I think that's a legitimate question. He's inexperienced. Prior to becoming a senator there was really never any real interest, at least professed or written about by him, regarding national security or international affairs. I really believe in his heart of heart that he thinks that there's nothing so wrong that sitting down and having dialogue cannot solve. 

It's rather magical thinking as done by a child; that the worlds interests are those of the U.S. and what he thinks the solution to be is what is shared by the rest of the world. This has been shown over and over again in both his comments and actions. 

"Woe to the nation who has a child for a king."


----------



## MaxBuck

Hitch said:


> You're right again Max. A simple Rose Garden press conference in front of the worlds largest press corp is a perfect place to keep things quiet. Who was that black guy there anyway?


And had he not held the press conference, you can be sure Obama would be excoriated by Faux News for failing to be forthcoming. Good grief, there's likely to be plenty of appropriate blame to pass out for the decision to spend the effort to bring the young man back; holding a press conference isn't blameworthy in the slightest.

This sort of straining at gnats is what turns off the American center about the Tea Partiers. They can't focus on the real problems, preferring instead to raise a ruckus about extraneous trivia.


----------



## MaxBuck

SG_67 said:


> By the way, what is illegal about Guantanamo Bay? I've never really understood this. This is a serious question. What is illegal about the prison in Guantanamo?


Due process is the issue, SG. It's fine and dandy to call the prisoners at Gitmo "enemy combatants," but that phrase really has no meaning given we've declared war against no one. As a reminder, the 6th Amendment to the US Constitution provides for a speedy trial, among other things:



> In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.


All of these rights have been denied the prisoners at Gitmo. And I cannot accept the notion that the end justifies the means; that's the sort of excuse used by despots and tyrants.

Personally, I believe the PATRIOT Act was essentially a victory for Al-Qaeda. They managed to turn a relatively free nation into one that has become substantially less free ... especially if your beliefs don't conform to "American norms." Of course, they've also managed to demonize a great many patriotic Muslim-Americans who find their actions to be as execrable as Christian and Jewish Americans do.


----------



## immanuelrx

Man! I leave for work this morning after making a few comments only to come back and see the nonsense ninja in full force! I shouldn't be surprised since this topic was an easy target for him. Got to love the interchange. It is the irrational magnet, pulling the rationally challenged in with it's strong magnetic field.


----------



## Hitch

immanuelrx said:


> Man! I leave for work this morning after making a few comments only to come back and see the nonsense ninja in full force! I shouldn't be surprised since this topic was an easy target for him. Got to love the interchange. It is the irrational magnet, pulling the rationally challenged in with it's strong magnetic field.


POW!.


----------



## Hitch

MaxBuck said:


> And had he not held the press conference, you can be sure Obama would be excoriated by Faux News for failing to be forthcoming. Good grief, there's likely to be plenty of appropriate blame to pass out for the decision to spend the effort to bring the young man back; holding a press conference isn't blameworthy in the slightest .


 Political gain was the only reason Obama 'needed' a Rose Garden Circus. Any one of hundreds of US officials would have been adequate to make the necessary statements that would leave no room for your ridiculous claim


> This sort of straining at gnats is what turns off the American center about the Tea Partiers. They can't focus on the real problems, preferring instead to raise a ruckus about extraneous trivia.


 Extraneous trivia, like this?

PFC Morris Walker, Staff Sgt. Kurt Curtiss, Staff Sgt. Michael Murphrey, 2nd Lt. Darryn Andrews & PFC Matthew Martinek. Five who lost their lives in search of Bowe Bergdahl.

But since you're an expert on Obama, Tea Partyers, and all perhaps you can tell me just how Obama could have made this whole event more front and center?


----------



## SG_67

MaxBuck said:


> Due process is the issue, SG. It's fine and dandy to call the prisoners at Gitmo "enemy combatants," but that phrase really has no meaning given we've declared war against no one. As a reminder, the 6th Amendment to the US Constitution provides for a speedy trial, among other things:


I'm not a lawyer so I won't quibble with this or what "due process" really means in a case like this or how it applies to these people. Congress does not have to declare war in order for us to go to war; this has been shown in previous conflicts and is not without precedent. I'll remind you that the Civil War was not really a war in this case, but a rebellion against the federal government, yet both sides took prisoners of war.



> All of these rights have been denied the prisoners at Gitmo. And I cannot accept the notion that the end justifies the means; that's the sort of excuse used by despots and tyrants.


What is your solution then? Should we just cut them loose? If we try them, then surely they will be found guilty of committing war crimes as they took up arms outside of the norms of the Geneva Conventions. These are indeed enemy or unlawful combatants as they were not wearing uniforms or the insignia of their countries. In fact, some of these people could be classified as mercenaries as they are not afghans, but Saudis or from other countries.



> Personally, I believe the PATRIOT Act was essentially a victory for Al-Qaeda. They managed to turn a relatively free nation into one that has become substantially less free ... especially if your beliefs don't conform to "American norms." Of course, they've also managed to demonize a great many patriotic Muslim-Americans who find their actions to be as execrable as Christian and Jewish Americans do.


I honestly don't see how we're less free and there are plenty of people whose opinions don't conform to "norms", although I would argue I have no idea what you mean by that. Most of us in our daily lives go on day to day without thinking of such things, and if I have to take my shoes off in the airport or show my ID twice instead of just once when boarding a plane, I don't see that as an infringement of my liberties.

I'm still free to speak, walk, act (within reason), worship, write, read and support political causes, both popular and unpopular as I was before 2001 or the Patriot Act. As for demonizing Muslim Americans, I don't really see this either. Could you please provide an example of the systematic and state sponsored persecution or demonization of Muslim Americans by either the Bush or Obama administrations?


----------



## Hitch

32rollandrock said:


> This is the best answer.
> 
> At the risk of sending Hitch into a conundrum, is it possible that Obama might--just might--have done something here because he thought that it was the right thing to do?


 LOL Dont tell you think Rose Garden press conferences are a good was to keep things quiet too


> From what I've read, the guy was showing all kinds of signs of breaking down. He was aloof, had sent all his belongings home, was staring off into space and talking about hiking to China. I don't see any political upside to what the president did, in fact, quite the opposite. But Obama did it anyway. Now, it's fair to argue whether what he did was the correct course of action. But to always, always, always bring up politics, as if everything Obama does is done with an eye toward the next election? I think that's going overboard, at least in this case. I'm not arguing that there isn't a political component to a lot, if not most, of what a president--any president--does. But to constantly fixate on it gets tiresome.


Agreed . I'd love it if Obama would quit doing it, it is tiresome


> For now, at least, I'm going to assume that Obama saw a family in pain and tried to ease that pain by bringing the young man home. Again, we can debate whether it was the right thing to do. We should also remember that GOP operatives connected this guy's former colleagues in arms with the media, and with lightning speed, which I find a bit interesting.


 PFC Morris Walker, Staff Sgt. Kurt Curtiss, Staff Sgt. Michael Murphrey, 2nd Lt. Darryn Andrews & PFC Matthew Martinek. Five who lost their lives in search of Bowe Bergdahl.

Obama probably knows these guys didnt have families and cant quote the Koran in Arabic anyway.


----------



## SG_67

justonemore said:


> Yes. I'm quite sure you'd like your posts to go without comment. But.. As you've gone out of your way to start name calling in the past, it's a bit hard to pretend that we'll all ignore your nonsense in the present.
> 
> Again. The question concerned asked if you'd find it ethical for enemy combatants to do the same to U.S. or Israeli soldiers. You have heard of "the golden rule"? Do unto others & all that jazz? Or was your point that it's only o.k. for the U.S. (and its allies) to do such things? As waterboarding isn't torture (according to you), I suppose you'd be willing to get strapped in a few times? It's just fine and dandy if our boys experience the same treatment? With such thoughts, it's certainly clear that you never spent any time putting your neck on the line in service to the country you reside in.


Justonemore,
Please make an attempt to post your thoughts at once and not keep going back and editing your previous posts for additional content.

Contrary to what you may think, I'm not in the habit of tracking your previous posts after I've read them already. Hence the reason I don't comment on them.

As for the additional comments edited in, I stand by my first reply; sorry to have bothered you.


----------



## vpkozel

MaxBuck said:


> Due process is the issue, SG. It's fine and dandy to call the prisoners at Gitmo "enemy combatants," but that phrase really has no meaning given we've declared war against no one. As a reminder, the 6th Amendment to the US Constitution provides for a speedy trial, among other things:
> 
> All of these rights have been denied the prisoners at Gitmo. And I cannot accept the notion that the end justifies the means; that's the sort of excuse used by despots and tyrants..


Whoa, easy there champ. The Constitution has absolutely zero application in the case of anyone in Gitmo. The Constitution applies only to US citizens and those in the US (these are called US persons by the USSC). And when dealing with US representatives overseas, even a US citizen is not guaranteed Constitutional rights in all cases (e.g., a US citizen engaged in combat would not receive the rights in contained in the Eighth). Also, please note that all US members of the military are NOT covered by the Constitution, but rather by the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ).

Any rights that the detainees would be allowed to assert would only be those of the ones in the Geneva Convention, but as I do not think that Afghanistan is a signatory, I do not believe that the US is obligated to grant these rights, although we most likely have and still do


----------



## 32rollandrock

Hitch said:


> LOL Dont tell you think Rose Garden press conferences are a good was to keep things quiet too Agreed . I'd love it if Obama would quit doing it, it is tiresome
> PFC Morris Walker, Staff Sgt. Kurt Curtiss, Staff Sgt. Michael Murphrey, 2nd Lt. Darryn Andrews & PFC Matthew Martinek. Five who lost their lives in search of Bowe Bergdahl.
> 
> Obama probably knows these guys didnt have families and cant quote the Koran in Arabic anyway.


If I was related to these men, I would take offense at people reciting their names over and over again as you are doing. They were human beings. You are turning them into bumper stickers. Have some decency.

None of us know enough at this point to make solid judgments--we're early in the game and it can be difficult to separate spin from hyperbole from fact as political operatives use tragedy and the weirdness inherent in war to score points. But SG's point is a good one, and it's the point I was trying to make, albeit less articulately. Negotiating with terrorists is tricky business. I'm much more concerned about that, frankly, than whether it was right or wrong to put soldiers in harm's way to rescue this guy. I am also very much against forming a snap opinion.

I do know this: End of the day, we have W. to thank for this. None of these guys would have died, would have even been there in the first place, if Bush hadn't botched things in such epic fashion after 9/11. We had the whole freakin' world behind us and we managed to squander it inside of a year. If you want to see a president with blood on his hands, look to the last Republican to hold the office. Remember Mission Accomplished? Remember Pat Tillman? In case you've forgotten, nearly 4,500 Americans died in Iraq alone, and--you can look this up--the total death toll is in the six figures. For nothing. For absolutely nothing. At least this president, once they located Osama bin Laden, had the stones to take action. W didn't--remember Bora Bora?

OK, you can start your anti-liberal rants--I suspect you'll start by blaming Clinton for not going on the warpath after the Cole attack. But you should remember: Going on the warpath is serious business. It should not be taken lightly, as W demonstrated to the eternal grief of thousands of people in the United States and umpteen times that many who have suffered abroad. Once you go to war, stuff gets weird really quick. Every war has its moments of inexcusable stupidity. That's the nature of war. You should remember that as you sit there in the safety of your home taking pot shots as Monday Morning Quarterback In Chief before you or anyone else knows all the facts. And, more than anything else, you should remember that Obama didn't create this mess. He's still cleaning up after the last guy.


----------



## vpkozel

justonemore said:


> Yes. I'm quite sure you'd like your posts to go without comment. But.. As you've gone out of your way to start name calling in the past, it's a bit hard to pretend that we'll all ignore your nonsense in the present.
> 
> Again. The question concerned asked if you'd find it ethical for enemy combatants to do the same to U.S. or Israeli soldiers. You have heard of "the golden rule"? Do unto others & all that jazz? Or was your point that it's only o.k. for the U.S. (and its allies) to do such things? As waterboarding isn't torture (according to you), I suppose you'd be willing to get strapped in a few times? It's just fine and dandy if our boys experience the same treatment? With such thoughts, it's certainly clear that you never spent any time putting your neck on the line in service to the country you reside in.


While I tend to be against waterboarding all together, it has not been universally agreed that waterboarding is indeed torture. I am definitely against any form of physical torture as the tortured person will generally tell their captors what they think they want to hear, so any interrogation is, for all practical purposes, rendered useless. I have no problem with interrogating these men to get information from them though.

Of course all of this leaves out the cases where lives might be imminently in danger - what do you do then?


----------



## MaxBuck

Hitch said:


> Political gain was the only reason Obama 'needed' a Rose Garden Circus. Any one of hundreds of US officials would have been adequate to make the necessary statements that would leave no room for your ridiculous claim Extraneous trivia, like this?
> 
> PFC Morris Walker, Staff Sgt. Kurt Curtiss, Staff Sgt. Michael Murphrey, 2nd Lt. Darryn Andrews & PFC Matthew Martinek. Five who lost their lives in search of Bowe Bergdahl.
> 
> But since you're an expert on Obama, Tea Partyers, and all perhaps you can tell me just how Obama could have made this whole event more front and center?


Maybe you could stop intentionally misrepresenting what I've said; as you'll recall, I stated above that the loss of life and resources had better be counterbalanced by substantial intelligence gains by virtue of Bergdahl's return, or the mission to retrieve him would prove to have been a fool's errand. But this sort of misrepresentation is as typical of Tea Partiers as it is of True Believers on the Left. Your suggestion that I regard the loss of five brave American soldiers as "trivial" is outrageous and insulting, and I demand an apology, not that I expect you have the stones or integrity to make one.

My point was, of course, that holding a press conference after this sort of event is something that's expected of every POTUS, whether we personally believe the man holding the office is a feckless dweeb or not. Trivia is focusing on the press conference rather than on the loss of life and waste of resources.

One thing I will acknowledge is that Obama should have kept Bergdahl's parents the hell off the dais. Regardless of your politics you have to sympathize with their anxiety during their son's captivity, but opening up the press conference to the ramblings of the kid's father was ridiculous.


----------



## vpkozel

32rollandrock said:


> If I was related to these men, I would take offense at people reciting their names over and over again as you are doing. They were human beings. You are turning them into bumper stickers. Have some decency.
> 
> None of us know enough at this point to make solid judgments--we're early in the game and it can be difficult to separate spin from hyperbole from fact as political operatives use tragedy and the weirdness inherent in war to score points. But SG's point is a good one, and it's the point I was trying to make, albeit less articulately. Negotiating with terrorists is tricky business. I'm much more concerned about that, frankly, than whether it was right or wrong to put soldiers in harm's way to rescue this guy. I am also very much against forming a snap opinion.
> 
> I do know this: End of the day, we have W. to thank for this. None of these guys would have died, would have even been there in the first place, if Bush hadn't botched things in such epic fashion after 9/11. We had the whole freakin' world behind us and we managed to squander it inside of a year. If you want to see a president with blood on his hands, look to the last Republican to hold the office. Remember Mission Accomplished? Remember Pat Tillman? In case you've forgotten, nearly 4,500 Americans died in Iraq alone, and--you can look this up--the total death toll is in the six figures. For nothing. For absolutely nothing. At least this president, once they located Osama bin Laden, had the stones to take action. W didn't--remember Bora Bora?
> 
> OK, you can start your anti-liberal rants--I suspect you'll start by blaming Clinton for not going on the warpath after the Cole attack. But you should remember: Going on the warpath is serious business. It should not be taken lightly, as W demonstrated to the eternal grief of thousands of people in the United States and umpteen times that many who have suffered abroad. Once you go to war, stuff gets weird really quick. Every war has its moments of inexcusable stupidity. That's the nature of war. You should remember that as you sit there in the safety of your home taking pot shots as Monday Morning Quarterback In Chief before you or anyone else knows all the facts. And, more than anything else, you should remember that Obama didn't create this mess. He's still cleaning up after the last guy.


Ummm, this happened in Afghanistan, so Iraq really doesn't have anything to do with it.

And I agree that waging war is very serious business, which is why Bush went to both Congress before Afghanistan and Iraq and to the UN before going into Iraq.


----------



## Hitch

MaxBuck said:


> Maybe you could stop intentionally misrepresenting what I've said;


 You have not been misrepresented


> as you'll recall, I stated above that the loss of life and resources had better be counterbalanced by substantial intelligence gains by virtue of Bergdahl's return, or the mission to retrieve him would prove to have been a fool's errand. But this sort of misrepresentation is as typical of Tea Partiers as it is of True Believers on the Left. Your suggestion that I regard the loss of five brave American soldiers as "trivial" is outrageous and insulting, and I demand an apology,


 LMAO quote Max ; _the Tea Partiers. They can't focus on the real problems__, Now Im not a 'Tea Partier' but I and most of them I;ll wager think dead American service personnel are 'real problems' so whine about insults to some one who cares. And grow a pair so you can apologize for for what you really said . _


> not that I expect you have the stones or integrity to make one.
> 
> My point was, of course, that holding a press conference after this sort of event is something that's expected of every POTUS, whether we personally believe the man holding the office is a feckless dweeb or not. Trivia is focusing on the press conference rather than on the loss of life and waste of resources.


 I'll repost what you actually said in a minute... _So far I see little evidence that Obama wants this whole deal to be front-and-center_


> One thing I will acknowledge is that Obama should have kept Bergdahl's parents the hell off the dais. Regardless of your politics you have to sympathize with their anxiety during their son's captivity, but opening up the press conference to the ramblings of the kid's father was ridiculous.


----------



## 32rollandrock

vpkozel said:


> Ummm, this happened in Afghanistan, so Iraq really doesn't have anything to do with it.
> 
> And I agree that waging war is very serious business, which is why Bush went to both Congress before Afghanistan and Iraq and to the UN before going into Iraq.


The UN told him no, remember? Remember the utter lack of blue helmets alongside our boys? Sheesh.

As for Afghanistan, I understand the difference between that country and Iraq. My point is the same: The last Republican POTUS botched both Afghanistan and Iraq. A competent leader, in the wake of 9/11, would have asked himself "What can we do to ensure this never happens again?" Instead, Bush asked himself "Where can I start killing people?" Boiled down, that is really what happened. Obama, at least, went on record when there was ZERO political upside in doing so and said that the war was stupid. He was right. Hitch and a lot of other people who knee-jerk against anyone who isn't a Republican seem to forget that.


----------



## Hitch

32rollandrock said:


> If I was related to these men, I would take offense at people reciting their names over and over again as you are doing. They were human beings. You are turning them into bumper stickers. Have some decency.


 _PFC Morris Walker, Staff Sgt. Kurt Curtiss, Staff Sgt. Michael Murphrey, 2nd Lt. Darryn Andrews & PFC Matthew Martinek. Five who lost their lives in search of Bowe Bergdahl _


> None of us know enough at this point to make solid judgments--we're early in the game and it can be difficult to separate spin from hyperbole from fact as political operatives use tragedy and the weirdness inherent in war to score points. But SG's point is a good one, and it's the point I was trying to make, albeit less articulately. Negotiating with terrorists is tricky business. I'm much more concerned about that, frankly, than whether it was right or wrong to put soldiers in harm's way to rescue this guy. I am also very much against forming a snap opinion.
> 
> I do know this: End of the day, we have W. to thank for this. None of these guys would have died, would have even been there in the first place, if Bush hadn't botched things in such epic fashion after 9/11. We had the whole freakin' world behind us and we managed to squander it inside of a year. If you want to see a president with blood on his hands, look to the last Republican to hold the office. Remember Mission Accomplished? Remember Pat Tillman? In case you've forgotten, nearly 4,500 Americans died in Iraq alone, and--you can look this up--the total death toll is in the six figures. For nothing. For absolutely nothing. At least this president, once they located Osama bin Laden, had the stones to take action. W didn't--remember Bora Bora?
> 
> OK, you can start your anti-liberal rants--I suspect you'll start by blaming Clinton for not going on the warpath after the Cole attack. But you should remember: Going on the warpath is serious business. It should not be taken lightly, as W demonstrated to the eternal grief of thousands of people in the United States and umpteen times that many who have suffered abroad. Once you go to war, stuff gets weird really quick. Every war has its moments of inexcusable stupidity. That's the nature of war. You should remember that as you sit there in the safety of your home taking pot shots as Monday Morning Quarterback In Chief before you or anyone else knows all the facts. And, more than anything else, you should remember that Obama didn't create this mess. He's still cleaning up after the last guy.


 If I were a fellow Obama worshiper I would want those names forgotten too. They wont be on my thread ,but I can see why their presence is troublesome for you.


----------



## Hitch

MaxBuck said:


> I've agreed that dead Americans are a real problem. Your continuing to suggest that I've said otherwise represents a continuing despicable lie that needs to be called out every time you make it.


 Rave on, your complaint is false, my posts are here for anyone to read. I suggest you review # 66.


> What little respect I may have had for you has vanished like the Malaysian airliner.


 I'll try to endure.


----------



## 32rollandrock

Hitch said:


> _PFC Morris Walker, Staff Sgt. Kurt Curtiss, Staff Sgt. Michael Murphrey, 2nd Lt. Darryn Andrews & PFC Matthew Martinek. Five who lost their lives in search of Bowe Bergdahl If I were a fellow Obama worshiper I would want those names forgotten too. They wont be on my thread ,but I can see why their presence is troublesome for you._


_

Never worshipped Obama (you can look up previous criticisms of him I've posted), nor have I ever voted for him. I think I'll bow out now. This is turning, as it always does, in a bad direction. Have fun with yourself._


----------



## vpkozel

32rollandrock said:


> The UN told him no, remember? Remember the utter lack of blue helmets alongside our boys? Sheesh.


UN Res 1441 gave the US and its partners (primarily the UK) the authorization, although the UN has never formally ever issued anything so clear as a go ahead and attack them type resolution. The are a bunch of bureaucrats and COYA types after all.

And I do not believe that the UN troops wear the blue helmets in combat, only when acting as peacekeepers, and even then I do not think that they are required to do so.


----------



## Hitch

32rollandrock said:


> Never worshipped Obama (you can look up previous criticisms of him I've posted), nor have I ever voted for him. I think I'll bow out now. This is turning, as it always does, in a bad direction. Have fun with yourself.


Every thread is not for your personal l Bushophobe soapboxing, sniping or pontificating, _And, more than anything else, you should remember that._


----------



## Shaver

MaxBuck said:


> Due process is the issue, SG. It's fine and dandy to call the prisoners at Gitmo "enemy combatants," but that phrase really has no meaning given we've declared war against no one. As a reminder, the 6th Amendment to the US Constitution provides for a speedy trial, among other things:
> 
> All of these rights have been denied the prisoners at Gitmo. And I cannot accept the notion that the end justifies the means; that's the sort of excuse used by despots and tyrants.
> 
> Personally, I believe the PATRIOT Act was essentially a victory for Al-Qaeda. They managed to turn a relatively free nation into one that has become substantially less free ... especially if your beliefs don't conform to "American norms." Of course, they've also managed to demonize a great many patriotic Muslim-Americans who find their actions to be as execrable as Christian and Jewish Americans do.


----------



## Shaver

SG_67 said:


> I..........
> Actually he didn't. He speculated and that's hardly an answer. He gave the typical answer about illegal detention (illegal in whose eyes?), no arrest warrants, and so on. If you want to see inhumanity visit 3rd world prisons. Guantanamo detainees are afforded books, meals, healthcare, clean facilities. They are afforded communal time to pray together, religious materials and clergy.
> 
> I assume he's referring to water boarding. This was done on a limited basis and while I don't consider it torture, if did not extend beyond 2003 and it was performed on I think 2-3 high level Al Qaeda folks. I suppose it's easy to look back with hindsight but I'm wondering how people would have felt if we had been attacked again and had not taken action to prevent it due to dithering about pouring water over someone's face.


Hey! SG-67: I believe that the moon is made out of green cheese. Prove me wrong, if you can.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde

Sorry to be callous here, but dead Americans aren't a problem if they are military personnel that freely joined the US armed forces, that is an expected and accepted risk.
What is a problem however asnd unacceptable is dead civilians killed by American or any other military or paramilitary personnel.


----------



## justonemore

With all the NSA stuff that the U.S. government (and the republican constituancy) seem to support, does anyone really think that they took these 5 guys and set them loose with no tracking? For $200 I had a chip in installed into the ears of my cats. I can follow them with my cell phone (should they ever managed to escape from the 15th story). Just a guess, but I would think all those highly paid government agencies have a bit more advanced technology. If I were an opposition (terrorist) commander, I would put these 5 down to nothing more than propoganda or 1 use suicide bombers (at best).


----------



## vpkozel

Earl of Ormonde said:


> Sorry to be callous here, but dead Americans aren't a problem if they are military personnel that freely joined the US armed forces, that is an expected and accepted risk.
> What is a problem however asnd unacceptable is dead civilians killed by American or any other military or paramilitary personnel.


This has been the least deadly war in the history of mankind as it relates to civilian casualties. In any large scale military action there will be civilian deaths, that is simply unavoidable and anyone who puts that expectation on the troops then we must remove military options from the table. But things can get very complex around this area in a hurry. Is one, ten, a hundred, a thousand civilian deaths OK if it results in the sparing of 2, 15, 101, or 5000 civilian lives? How many military lives are worth one civilian life? What about the greater good? Were 600,000 young men worth creating a true United States and all of the good we have done since 1865? Are 150K Japanese civilians killed by atomic bombs worth an estimated 1 million US military casualties (and many times that in Japanese civilian casualties)?

These are all extremely valid questions, but so few people can have an unheated discussion about these types of things because they bring in their prejudices and biases to the table (Just in this thread - The US squandered the love of the world because Bush is an idiot, Obama is a moron, Obama isn't to blame for any of this because he was just cleaning up the previous guys mess, etc.).

I did not vote for Obama either election, and only voted for Bush once. I don't know how history will see either man (Truman was one of the great US presidents ever and left office despised by almost everyone). But I do know this. Every president - or freely elected world leader - is doing his/her best in fantastically difficult situations.


----------



## vpkozel

justonemore said:


> With all the NSA stuff that the U.S. government (and the republican constituancy) seem to support, does anyone really think that they took these 5 guys and set them loose with no tracking? For $200 I had a chip in installed into the ears of my cats. I can follow them with my cell phone (should they ever managed to escape from the 15th story). Just a guess, but I would think all those highly paid government agencies have a bit more advanced technology. If I were an opposition (terrorist) commander, I would put these 5 down to nothing more than propoganda or 1 use suicide bombers (at best).


They have that kind of range now? It has been a while since we had pets and got them chipped, but it used to be that the scanner had to be pretty close to the chip.

But I agree about tracking these guys. Even if they are sans chip, I have no doubts that they have their own personal drone circling overhead at all times.....


----------



## SG_67

Shaver said:


> Hey! SG-67: I believe that the moon is made out of green cheese. Prove me wrong, if you can.


Hmmm.....I believe since we've actually landed on the moon and brought back soil samples that it's quiet easy to prove you incorrect. A better analogy would be "hey SG, I saw a flying saucer and aliens last night, prove me wrong."

But getting back to the original premise of this entire thread; this is the gang that can't shoot straight.

We have a guy that almost everyone, military leaders included, agrees deserted but Susan Rice goes out and talk about how he's served honorably. He ranted, both verbally and electronically about he was ashamed of being an American and his dissatisfaction for our adventure in Afghanistan. He talked about "roaming the earth".

They invite mom and dad to the rose garden. Dad looks, well let's just say bizarre and then starts in with Pashtun and praises Allah. Did anyone do prep work on these two? Why would the staff out the boss out there like that? Did anyone say to dad, "hey, just keep your mouth shut or simply say thanks and we love you son."? To perhaps save the rants for later?

So is it a political win, absolutely not when all everyone is talking about is the circumstances of the deal and whether it was wise. When this guy is court martialed it will really be embarrassing. When the parents and family of those KIA when they went looking for him start to speak out that will be even more embarrassing.

This is simply an amateurish president with an amateurish staff around him. He employs people on his staff who use the word "dude" when addressing the press so should we expect anything less?

JFK had intellectuals like McGeorge Bundy, Dean Rusk and John McCone. The current president is well under served and lacks a defined outlook himself through which to distill information.


----------



## Shaver

SG_67 said:


> Hmmm.....I believe since we've actually landed on the moon and brought back soil samples that it's quiet easy to prove you incorrect. .


Really? Do you have any soil samples yourself? Have you ever seen any? If you did own or view any such samples could you verify their authenticity? If so - how?

Do you see the point I am making here?


----------



## justonemore

The blood of those 5 are on the hands of the C.O.s that wanted to maintain their unit fitness record over the good of their unit. Anyone with a basic Human Resource class could see that this kid was not capabale of fullfilling his duties as demanded. If all the rumeurs the republicans are politizing are true, then this guy shouldn't have been where we was. The U.S. is a paid military and not a drafted force anymore. Miltary idiocy got this guy kidnapped, put his unit members in danger, got 5 soldiers killed while searching for one of their own (it would have been quite easy to make him a civilian again), and were responsible for the final bargain of 5 captives to 1. Although it's disgustingly American to make such things political, it is quite funny that our regular trolls desire to blame the lowest ranking and highest ranking while ignoring everything in between.TAlk about extremists. And of course all of this without any "official record"" compared to hearsay.


----------



## SG_67

Shaver said:


> Really? Do you have any soil samples yourself? Have you ever seen any? If you did own or view any such samples could you verify their authenticity? If so - how?
> 
> Do you see the point I am making here?


Not really. One is binary; either the moon is made of cheese or it isn't. The second is open to interpretation; what constitutes torture and inhumane treatment.


----------



## SG_67

justonemore said:


> The blood of those 5 are on the hands of the C.O.s that wanted to maintain their unit fitness record over the good of their unit. Anyone with a basic Human Resource class could see that this kid was not capabale of fullfilling his duties as demanded. If all the rumeurs the republicans are politizing are true, then this guy shouldn't have been where we was. The U.S. is a paid military and not a drafted force anymore. Miltary idiocy got this guy kidnapped, put his unit members in danger, got 5 soldiers killed while searching for one of their own (it would have been quite easy to make him a civilian again), and were responsible for the final bargain of 5 captives to 1. Although it's disgustingly American to make such things political, it is quite funny that our regular trolls desire to blame the lowest ranking and highest ranking while ignoring everything in between.TAlk about extremists. And of course all of this without any "official record"" compared to hearsay.


I actually agree with you on this, up to a point. I don't believe military idiocy got this guy kidnapped. I believe he just walked off on his own and deserted.

Having said that, he should have been screened, profiled and ejected from the service some time ago. Unfortunately, our military is far too accommodating to people who tend to be unstable, to wit Major Nidal Hassan, Pvt. Bradley, now Chelsea, Manning and although not necessarily military but within the intelligence community, Mr. Edward Snowden.

The government does a poor job, I believe, in profiling these people before placing them into high demand and sensitive roles.

And one more thing, please stop referring to people you don't agree with as trolls.


----------



## Shaver

SG_67 said:


> Not really. One is binary; either the moon is made of cheese or it isn't. The second is open to interpretation; what constitutes torture and inhumane treatment.


We could have the discussion as to what exactly constitutes cheese. For example, if the moon were mascarpone... it is a matter of interpretation where cheese ends and cream begins.

Do you see my point yet?


----------



## SG_67

Shaver said:


> We could have the discussion as to what exactly constitutes cheese. For example, if the moon were mascarpone... it is a matter of interpretation where cheese ends and cream begins.
> 
> Do you see my point yet?


No...not really. The moon is made of something but it's certainly not edible by human beings. If you would rather discuss the virtues of marscapone cheese vs. hard cheese be my guest. The moon is indeed made of something, but it's not any dairy product. Rocks and dairy products are not of the same species or genus for that matter.


----------



## justonemore

SG_67 said:


> And one more thing, please stop referring to people you don't agree with as trolls.


Well to me, those that are quick to claim anti-semitism and refuse to properly define such or apologize, those that are quick to pickup on a typing error and exploit it by disallowing the basic content of the arguement & insulting the poster, those that refuse to answer posts concerning their theories, those that write one line repsonses when others have written paragraphs, those that refuse to justify their position because the "language" isn't "just right" for their liking, those that write the same thing in 5-10 posts in hoping for an emotional response ... Well. These are all trolls.


----------



## Shaver

SG_67 said:


> No...not really. The moon is made of something but it's certainly not edible by human beings. If you would rather discuss the virtues of marscapone cheese vs. hard cheese be my guest. The moon is indeed made of something, but it's not any dairy product. Rocks and dairy products are not of the same species or genus for that matter.


I suggest that the Moon is made of dairy products and that no rocks can be found anywhere on the lunar surface. Prove me wrong.


----------



## justonemore

Shaver said:


> I suggest that the Moon is made of dairy products and that no rocks can be found anywhere on the lunar surface. Prove me wrong.


Come now dear Shaver, not everyone has read about (let alone understood) Adam's hermit god.


----------



## Chouan

eagle2250 said:


> Chouan: If the Taliban's claim of legitimacy as the governing authority in Afghanistan is as solid as you think it to be, why did only three nations (Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and the UAE) ever offer them diplomatic recognition. The bottom line is they forced their way to power and held on to same through a continuing series of criminal/terrorist acts against their own countrymen. They represented a decidedly cruel, but still a minority segment of the Afghan population. In your earlier post you asked what my understanding of a "Patriot" was. According to Webster's Dictionary a patriot is "a person who loves, supports and defends his or her country and it's interests and does so with devotion." I'm comfortable with Webster's definition, but fail to see how the Taliban fits that description. They represent and terrorize their own citizens to stay in control and to impose their sick and twisted perspectives on religion and social controls on the victims of their oppression.
> 
> All five of the terrorists traded in this present fiasco of a prisoner swap formerly held senior leadership positions in what is clearly a terrorist organization.


Would you describe Russian soldiers in WW2 as patriots? Or German soldiers in WW2 as patriots? Or a soldier of the Tercios in 1936? Or members of the Maquis? Or Serb partisans? Or Chetniks? Or Ustaci? You seem, thus far, to define patriots as the standard definition, with a proviso that you like them as well!

I haven't suggested that the Taliban's legitimacy is solid. I suggested that their legitimacy is no more solid that Karzai's, or any other afghan warlord's.

How are they leaders of "clearly a terrorist organisation"? They are leaders of a political faction within Afghanistan. By what right does the US hold them? Does the US claim the right to arrest people it doesn't like, who aren't a threat to the US, wherever they are in the world, and then hold them without trial? If it does, are you happy with that?


----------



## SG_67

Shaver said:


> I suggest that the Moon is made of dairy products and that no rocks can be found anywhere on the lunar surface. Prove me wrong.


I don't have to prove you wrong. There is physical evidence that indicates otherwise. Therefore, it's incumbent on you to show evidence that the moon is indeed made of cheese and that no rocks exist.

You have to love how these topics go completely off premise.


----------



## Shaver

SG_67 said:


> I don't have to prove you wrong. There is physical evidence that indicates otherwise. Therefore, it's incumbent on you to show evidence that the moon is indeed made of cheese and that no rocks exist.
> 
> You have to love how these topics go completely off premise.


Nope. I do not believe that it is incumbent upon myself to provide any evidence whatsoever, my simply saying so makes it so.

I do, however, believe that it is incumbent upon you to provide the contradictory physical evidence which you fallaciously maintain exists. Unless of course you wish to concede that you are unable to counter the flagrant truth - the moon is made of cheese.

We'll get there in the end (I hope).


----------



## justonemore

SG_67 said:


> The government does a poor job, I believe, in profiling these people before placing them into high demand and sensitive roles.
> 
> .


Umm. While I realise that you've only enjoyed your "freedom" versus having served/sacrificed for it, there is a big difference between the government and the military. The government has little to nothing to do with troop recruitment, stabilisation, and long term retention. It is in the hands of the military. You do understand that there is a difference? Or no? Surely the trolls aren't suggesting that Obama and the democrats were front line commanders capable of assessing a soldiers capabilities before, during, and after service to the military? It may be hard for civilians to understand but the the military even has its own court system which is quite different from that enjoyed by those that feeel they need not serve their country orf residence at all.


----------



## justonemore

SG_67 said:


> I actually agree with you on this, up to a point. I don't believe military idiocy got this guy kidnapped. I believe he just walked off on his own and deserted.
> 
> .


You ignore the time line. Had he been correctly identified and discharged, it wouldn't matter at all. He would have been in hicksville u.s.a. 6 years ago and that would have been the end of the chain. I don't care if the guy went awol, was kidnapped, went crazy, deserted, etc. He shouldn't have been where he was. The signs were beyond obvious. We now have people dead because of the failures from C.O.s all the way from squad leader, to brigade commander.


----------



## SG_67

Shaver said:


> Nope. I do not believe that it is incumbent upon myself to provide any evidence whatsoever, my simply saying so makes it so.
> 
> I do, however, believe that it is incumbent upon you to provide the contradictory physical evidence which you fallaciously maintain exists. Unless of course you wish to concede that you are unable to counter the flagrant truth - the moon is made of cheese.
> 
> We'll get there in the end (I hope).


Would water boarding be allowed on your moon made of cheese?


----------



## 32rollandrock

Hitch said:


> Every thread is not for your personal l Bushophobe soapboxing, sniping or pontificating, _And, more than anything else, you should remember that._


Mega dittos, bro!

Lord. But it is OK for you to spew Obama hate regardless of the subject and the truth? And the truth that is emerging seems less cut-and-dry than the spin doctors have spun:

https://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/04/...-tied-to-6-lost-lives-facts-are-murky.html?hp

The Obama hate is just so over-the-top stupid. I know that's a strong word, but it is just that: stupid. It's disheartening to see it here. And, again, I'm no Obama fan, so don't try painting me as such. You do it because you can't talk about things in ways that really matter. What you are engaging in here (and in previous posts) fans flames without enlightenment. You approach the world as if it's entirely black and white, some people always good, others always bad. The world doesn't work that way--only people like yourself and Nancy Grace pretend that it does. Frankly, you should go back to the playground, because that's the level of discussion you seem to prefer.

And yes, for the record, I believe that Bush was the worst president in history, certainly in my lifetime, and I can make that argument cogently and without calling you names or anyone else for that matter.


----------



## justonemore

As I'm not allowed to edit per orders by our local newbie expert.....As to trolls....I also enjoy the trolls that claim speaking any language other than English is equal to terrorism. What solid logic.


----------



## justonemore

32rollandrock said:


> Mega dittos, bro!
> 
> Lord. But it is OK for you to spew Obama hate regardless of the subject and the truth? And the truth that is emerging seems less cut-and-dry than the spin doctors have spun:
> 
> https://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/04/...-tied-to-6-lost-lives-facts-are-murky.html?hp
> 
> The Obama hate is just so over-the-top stupid. I know that's a strong word, but it is just that: stupid. It's disheartening to see it here. And, again, I'm no Obama fan, so don't try painting me as such. You do it because you can't talk about things in ways that really matter. What you are engaging in here (and in previous posts) fans flames without enlightenment. You approach the world as if it's entirely black and white, some people always good, others always bad. The world doesn't work that way--only people like yourself and Nancy Grace pretend that it does. Frankly, you should go back to the playground, because that's the level of discussion you seem to prefer.
> 
> And yes, for the record, I believe that Bush was the worst president in history, certainly in my lifetime, and I can make that argument cogently and without calling you names or anyone else for that matter.


He's a trolll hero. No need for respect or response. Just give him a one liner if you feel the need to reply. The guy writes the same thing 5 times and acts as if we should all be shocked. Out of the 1000's dead, he wants to push 5 names. Is it the fault of Obama? Nope. Is it the fault of the guy that has lost his mind? A bit more but not really. Hitch just can't see the middle ground. He's pretty much no better than an islamic terrorist. If he's ever served versusjust enjoying others sacrifices, I'd like to see him come up with any proof. Otherwise, he's just a one line loser that comes here to troll.


----------



## SG_67

My goodness the level of vitriol that's sometimes meted out here is incredible! Is it possible to have a civil discussion without resorting to calling people losers and trolls? 

I'm just curious.


----------



## justonemore

SG_67 said:


> My goodness the level of vitriol that's sometimes meted out here is incredible! Is it possible to have a civil discussion without resorting to calling people losers and trolls?
> 
> I'm just curious.


Curious coming from someone that resorts to calling others anti-semitic at the first sign of Israeli critism. Were you not also the person that made a big deal out of my typo last time? If I remember correctly, you insulted me many times over 3 posts. Whn I stated I hadn't noticed the error you continued on with how you thought I was an idiot and couldn't be debated with because of such an error? We had at least one other member call you out on this as well. Would you like to follow your own rules or are you happy enough just teling others to follow your words?

Once again, I see this a being a troll. You do what you want and are critical of others doing the same. Hitch is a troll. Others have claimed so as well. His posts (you can go read all of them should you so desire), are usually about one line and repeat the same thing over and over. Anyone that refuses to defend their position or replies with one line is a troll loser in my thoughts. You support torture, I support banning of the newbie trolls. Welcome to the interchange....


----------



## SG_67

justonemore said:


> Curious coming from someone that resorts to calling others anti-semitic at the first sign of Israeli critism. Were you not also the person that made a big deal out of my typo last time? If I remember correctly, you insulted me many times over 3 posts. Whn I stated I hadn't noticed the error you continued on with how you thought I was an idiot and couldn't be debated with because of such an error? We had at least one other member call you out on this as well. Would you like to follow your own rules or are you happy enough just teling others to follow your words?
> 
> Once again, I see this a being a troll. You do what you want and are critical of others doing the same. Hitch is a troll. Others have claimed so as well. His posts (you can go read all of them should you so desire), are usually about one line and repeat the same thing over and over. Anyone that refuses to defend their position or replies with one line is a troll loser in my thoughts. You support torture, I support banning of the newbie trolls. Welcome to the interchange....


----------



## WmC

It's a win for Bergdahl. I'm a little disappointed that people seem to be going after him as a traitor and deserter. Even if there was something squirrely about his capture, I think that we should give the soldiers who were sent into the meat grinder the befit of the doubt.


----------



## 32rollandrock

WmC said:


> It's a win for Bergdahl. I'm a little disappointed that people seem to be going after him as a traitor and deserter. Even if there was something squirrely about his capture, I think that we should give the soldiers who were sent into the meat grinder the befit of the doubt.


Obviously, it's a win for him, but beyond that, it gets complicated. I asked a friend whose opinion I respect what he thought. Without hesitation, he said "Bring the guy home." This was coming from someone with a military background whose hatred for Obama (and Clinton) makes Hitch sound like a charter member of the ACLU. He also suggested that they implanted enough chips in the Gitmo guys that none of their friends back home will dare go near them for fear of ending up as collateral damage in the inevitable drone attacks. I hate to say it, and I've not thought this out well, but sometimes, I think, you have to trust the government (yikes). In this case, nothing that anyone does will ever bring any dead people back to life. We'll probably never know what happened. That's why they call it fog of war.


----------



## WouldaShoulda

I think he's having gender identity issues and realized the Taliban wouldn't pay for his sex change. 

Of course, that's just wild speculation on my part, though not unprecedented!!


----------



## SG_67

^ you mean the Taliban would deny someone this basic human right?


----------



## 32rollandrock

SG_67 said:


> ^ you mean the Taliban would deny someone this basic human right?


Actually, I suspect the Taliban would be happy to oblige if he decided he had surplus accoutrements.


----------



## Hitch

SG_67 said:


> My goodness the level of vitriol that's sometimes meted out here is incredible! Is it possible to have a civil discussion without resorting to calling people losers and trolls?
> 
> I'm just curious.


Not if you insist on feeding them.


----------



## Hitch

32rollandrock said:


> Mega dittos, bro!
> 
> Lord. But it is OK for you to spew Obama hate regardless of the subject and the truth? And the truth that is emerging seems less cut-and-dry than the spin doctors have spun:
> 
> https://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/04/...-tied-to-6-lost-lives-facts-are-murky.html?hp
> 
> The Obama hate is just so over-the-top stupid. I know that's a strong word, but it is just that: stupid. It's disheartening to see it here. And, again, I'm no Obama fan, so don't try painting me as such. You do it because you can't talk about things in ways that really matter. What you are engaging in here (and in previous posts) fans flames without enlightenment. You approach the world as if it's entirely black and white, some people always good, others always bad. The world doesn't work that way--only people like yourself and Nancy Grace pretend that it does. Frankly, you should go back to the playground, because that's the level of discussion you seem to prefer.


 Im shocked shocked I tell you to another lefty pretending he knows what he cannot and fumbling over how to best demonize the opposition. I couldnt be more surprised if the sun came up in the east tomorrow


> And yes, for the record, I believe that Bush was the worst president in history, certainly in my lifetime, and I can make that argument cogently and without calling you names


 see above in red


> or anyone else for that matter.


I'd say grow a pair but in your case -try just one. You're and adult you can start a thread and say whatever you like. That said what you will do is continue to play the parasite.


----------



## Hitch

Earl of Ormonde said:


> Legally? Really? According to whose laws? US troops were in their country thosands of miles from the USA, these Islamists were not in the USA! So using your logic then it is perfectly okay for Islamists to apply Sharia law to captured US troops and behead them all in accrodance with their law. Fine, just as long as we're clear on that.


I'd remind you that NAZIs captured out of uniform and/or in the uniform one of the allies were subject to summary execution , regardless of geography, but then Sweeds dont fight NAZIS do they?


----------



## immanuelrx

SG_67 said:


> My goodness the level of vitriol that's sometimes meted out here is incredible! Is it possible to have a civil discussion without resorting to calling people losers and trolls?
> 
> I'm just curious.


Think of it this way man. There are certain people who, when criticized, call you a hater. They don't want to be told their are wrong, admit they are wrong, or take any responsibility for their actions. It is the same as calling someone a troll online. When the nonsense ninja runs out of verbal garbage, he has to call you a troll. Either that or he has to stew on comments for a while than repost his answer so as to make himself sound better than the original verbal garbage posted.


----------



## immanuelrx

Earl of Ormonde said:


> Sorry to be callous here, but dead Americans aren't a problem if they are military personnel that freely joined the US armed forces, that is an expected and accepted risk.
> What is a problem however asnd unacceptable is dead civilians killed by American or any other military or paramilitary personnel.


Wow, this is the dumbest comment I have ever read. We know there is a risk to joining, but us dying because of our service is still a problem. Think about it. Take out your bias thinking and replace US forces and dead americans with any other country's forces, firefighters, or policemen. It is a stupid comment any way you spin it. I don't see your point on the last sentence either. It is a problem if Americans kill innocent civilians. It is a problem if anybody kills innocent cilivians. what is your point? This is what I think of when I read your response:


----------



## Hitch

With that near-disaster over, the soldier recounted: "We averaged 18 to 22 kilometers a day on foot, clearing house to house, room to room, looking for Bergdahl. . . . We even went as far as rappelling down wells and crawling through tunnels to look for him." The standard procedure for recapturing Bergdahl was not "normal," the soldier noted. "He was very good with knives and trained to throw and fight hand-to-hand with knives. We did not know the mental state of Bergdahl at the time. All we knew was he left on his own, he caused us lots of hardship, and if we entered a room and saw him, we would put him down because he could attack us."

https://www.nationalreview.com/article/379499/bergdahl-story-you-havent-heard-michelle-malkin


----------



## Hitch

I reckon this whole thing was timed to get the talk off the subject of Benghazi and the VA. It certainly did that, but it seems that a real gain for Obama becomes less likely every day.


----------



## SG_67

Hitch said:


> I reckon this whole thing was timed to get the talk off the subject of Benghazi and the VA. It certainly did that, but it seems that a real gain for Obama becomes less likely every day.


Exactly! So going back to the original premise, they hoped to gain a respite from all the bad news over the past few weeks and instead it's another fiasco they have to clean up.

So was it a political winner? It's apparent now that it took only a couple of days to answer that question.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde

Hitch said:


> I'd remind you that NAZIs captured out of uniform and/or in the uniform one of the allies were subject to summary execution , regardless of geography, but then Sweeds dont fight NAZIS do they?


Wrong on both counts. You need to study military history a lot better. I don't know what a Sweed is. Perhaps you mean Swede. But why the adolescent attempt at a personal insult? What does that have to do with the discussion or what I wrote. The only explanation I can think of for such a pathetic attempt to insult is that what I wrote clearly touched a sore nerve with you. Also why have you written it in the present tense? The war ended 69 years ago.

BTW, I'm Irish not Swedish, I just happen to live in Sweden.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde

immanuelrx said:


> Wow, this is the *dumbest* comment I have ever read. We know there is a risk to joining, but us dying because of our service is still a problem. Think about it. Take out your bias thinking and replace US forces and dead americans with any other country's forces, firefighters, or policemen. It is a *stupid* comment any way you spin it. I don't see your point on the last sentence either. It is a problem if Americans kill innocent civilians. It is a problem if anybody kills innocent cilivians. what is your point? *This is what I think of when I read your response*:


This is how to spell gramm*a*r.


----------



## immanuelrx

Earl of Ormonde said:


> This is how to spell gramm*a*r.


Good looking out man.


----------



## Hitch

Earl of Ormonde said:


> Wrong on both counts. You need to study military history a lot better. I don't know what a Sweed is. Perhaps you mean Swede. But why the adolescent attempt at a personal insult? What does that have to do with the discussion or what I wrote. The only explanation I can think of for such a pathetic attempt to insult is that what I wrote clearly touched a sore nerve with you. Also why have you written it in the present tense? The war ended 69 years ago.
> 
> BTW, I'm Irish not Swedish, I just happen to live in Sweden.


Ahhh the Irish .They have a name in Ireland for those who take up arms to fight NAZIs, deserter.


----------



## 32rollandrock

Hitch said:


> With that near-disaster over, the soldier recounted: "We averaged 18 to 22 kilometers a day on foot, clearing house to house, room to room, looking for Bergdahl. . . . We even went as far as rappelling down wells and crawling through tunnels to look for him." The standard procedure for recapturing Bergdahl was not "normal," the soldier noted. "He was very good with knives and trained to throw and fight hand-to-hand with knives. We did not know the mental state of Bergdahl at the time. All we knew was he left on his own, he caused us lots of hardship, and if we entered a room and saw him, we would put him down because he could attack us."
> 
> https://www.nationalreview.com/article/379499/bergdahl-story-you-havent-heard-michelle-malkin


"He was trained to fight hand-to-hand with knives."

And who, exactly, trained him? At last check, bayonets and the like went out with the Mexican-American War. And we are supposed to believe that these guys who carry guns are afraid of a guy who might be carrying a knife? Please.

Can't you read this stuff and understand it's anybody's guess as to the truth? Man, oh, man.


----------



## Hitch

32rollandrock said:


> "He was trained to fight hand-to-hand with knives."
> And who, exactly, trained him? At last check, bayonets and the like went out with the Mexican-American War.


 Actually for the Army it was around 2010


> And we are supposed to believe that these guys who carry guns are afraid of a guy who might be carrying a knife? Please.
> 
> Can't you read this stuff and understand it's anybody's guess as to the truth? Man, oh, man.


 Hand to hand with a knife is not the same as and old fashioned fixed bayonet charge. You comment is pointless ,. Pun intended.

There must be some place you are wanted.


----------



## Hitch

LOL Note the standard lefty alteration . The quote 32 makes his complaint from doesnt mention bayonets. 32 has fabricated that nonsense. ho hum

_With that near-disaster over, the soldier recounted: "We averaged 18 to 22 kilometers a day on foot, clearing house to house, room to room, looking for Bergdahl. . . . We even went as far as rappelling down wells and crawling through tunnels to look for him." The standard procedure for recapturing Bergdahl was not "normal," the soldier noted. "He was very good with knives and trained to throw and fight hand-to-hand with knives. We did not know the mental state of Bergdahl at the time. All we knew was he left on his own, he caused us lots of hardship, and if we entered a room and saw him, we would put him down because he could attack us."_


----------



## Earl of Ormonde

Hitch said:


> Ahhh the Irish .They have a name in Ireland for those who take up arms to fight NAZIs, deserter.


No we don't. But keep making stuff up if that amuses you and if insults are the only way you can respond.


----------



## Shaver

SG_67 said:


> Would water boarding be allowed on your moon made of cheese?


I am left with no choice than to consider this an admission of defeat. Shall we keep score?

_Shaver 1 SG O_


----------



## Shaver

SG_67 said:


> My goodness the level of vitriol that's sometimes meted out here is incredible! Is it possible to have a civil discussion without resorting to calling people losers and trolls?
> 
> I'm just curious.


Civil discussion? Perhaps.

We also observe a great deal of sixth form level debating skills* bandied about the place though, don't we? :devil:

*Fallacy Of Extension, Argument From Adverse Consequences, False Dichotomy, False Cause, Argument By Question.


----------



## justonemore

I think I'll just keep putting put up names/pictures of all those Americans killed by American weapons given out by good ole Ronnie Reagan during the Iran -Contra affair . . Now there was a real leader. All he needed to do was have Nancy call up her boogie woogie astrologer and.. poof. He knew exactly what to do. Same with Bushie Jr. talking to god. With republicans capable of talking directly to the "next level", I can understand how democrats should be ignored although I do find it a bit funny how these gods and ghosts only talk to coke addled or pre-dementia republican u.s. présidents.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde

32rollandrock said:


> And who, exactly, trained him? At last check, bayonets and the like went out with the Mexican-American War.


Really? When did you last check then? You might want to inform the 82nd Airborne and the USAF Combat Security Police both of whom trained unarmed combat and knife fighting with us and were on military exercises with us in the early 80s. USMC, Rangers and US Special Forces still carry daggers & field knives.

For the record, a bayonet is not a knife it is a "rifle sword" as was. But bayonets were still very much in use in the 20th C when they were redesigned to function as knives. In the 80s we still carried our SLR rifle bayonets on our webbing for use as field knives, along with a 1ft heavy survival knife, and a stainless steel penknife.


----------



## justonemore

Shaver said:


> Civil discussion? Perhaps.
> 
> We also observe a great deal of sixth form level debating skills* bandied about the place though, don't we? :devil:
> 
> *Fallacy Of Extension, Argument From Adverse Consequences, False Dichotomy, False Cause, Argument By Question.


Well this is coming from a guy that claims anti-semitism with the drop of a hat. Of course backing up his claims caused such a problem that he actually refused to respond when others questioned such a statement. The same guy that insults others is now asking the insults to be eliminated/cut down. Too funny. Typical crybaby that can dish it out but can't take it. As if labeling someone a one line loser or internet troll has the same negative connotations as "Anti-Semite"...


----------



## Shaver

justonemore said:


> Well this is coming from a guy that claims anti-semitism with the drop of a hat. Of course backing up his claims caused such a problem that he actually refused to respond when others questioned such a statement. The same guy that insults others is now asking the insults to be eliminated/cut down. Too funny. Typical crybaby that can dish it out but can't take it. As if labeling someone a one line loser or internet troll has the same negative connotations as "Anti-Semite"...


And the anti-semetic accusations are...... ?

Yup! You've guessed it: False Dichotomy. :thumbs-up:


----------



## justonemore

Good ole Reagan. What a perfect politician...Can you imagine the reaction from the right if obummer did the same thing today?

https://imageshack.com/i/nd0br4j


----------



## justonemore

Reaganomics at work:

https://imageshack.com/i/ngx532j


----------



## justonemore

Shaver said:


> And the anti-semetic accusations are...... ?
> 
> Yup! You've guessed it: False Dichotomy. :thumbs-up:


And refusing to debate over a non-important mistake (Hippocrates vs hypocrite)... would be?

Directly insulting an individual over such a mistake compared to staying in the debate itself...would be?

Claiming to not understand a direct response to words you have written is?

Pretending ignorance in a debate ("what does D*&n mean"? I just can't figure out the symbols that have been used in the weekly funnies in the U.S. for the past 70 years), is an example of?

Refusing to debate you position due to "perceived bad language" (democraps vs repukes) is an example of?

Claiming that International law exists in the case of Israel being recognized as a member state while denying the U.N.'s authority over Israel's actions considered against international law is?

Before asking that others be "civilized", I would again suggest that the "Golden Rule" (Do unto others)
come into play on all sides.


----------



## Shaver

^ The answer to all of these questions, justonemore my friend, would appear to be - frivolous and vexatious debate. 

Who lives here? :devil:


----------



## Earl of Ormonde

Off now on a 3-day "safety job" for the Govt, so I'll check in again on Sunday or Monday when I get home. Bye for now, my chariot, a 4x4 diesel beast, awaits!


----------



## immanuelrx

justonemore said:


> I think I'll just keep putting put up names/pictures of all those Americans killed by American weapons given out by good ole Ronnie Reagan during the Iran -Contra affair . . Now there was a real leader. All he needed to do was have Nancy call up her boogie woogie astrologer and.. poof. He knew exactly what to do. Same with Bushie Jr. talking to god. With republicans capable of talking directly to the "next level", I can understand how democrats should be ignored although I do find it a bit funny how these gods and ghosts only talk to coke addled or pre-dementia republican u.s. présidents.


Don't stop now, keep on with the random nonsense. I am sure you have more Random crap up your sleeve to badmouth America and Americans. You missed a couple of presidents you can talk about in between. I am sure you can talk about how bad a certain movie is and how it represents how bad America is. Don't you think you can also post a random picture and random stats that have nothing to do with anything anybody is talking about?


----------



## immanuelrx

justonemore said:


> Good ole Reagan. What a perfect politician...Can you imagine the reaction from the right if obummer did the same thing today?
> 
> https://imageshack.com/i/nd0br4j


And there it is. Random Picture....


----------



## immanuelrx

justonemore said:


> Reaganomics at work:
> 
> https://imageshack.com/i/ngx532j


..and random stats. There is something missing to all this nonsense. Ah! Maybe you can include your review of a book on the NY Times best seller list? Maybe through in a little comment about an endangered animal that evil america is discriminating against? Your on a roll man, keep the nonsense coming!


----------



## justonemore

immanuelrx said:


> And there it is. Random Picture....


Real picture. In response to the political reasoning on this thread that Obama negotiated with terrorists. Are you trxing to deny the left vs right thinking that is prévalent in this thead?


----------



## justonemore

immanuelrx said:


> ..and random stats. There is something missing to all this nonsense. Ah! Maybe you can include your review of a book on the NY Times best seller list? Maybe through in a little comment about an endangered animal that evil america is discriminating against? Your on a roll man, keep the nonsense coming!


Again. In response to the american political righties that are trying to control the thread. If it's all nonsense then give a few links proving otherwise.... What? can't do it? welcome to AAC newbie troll.


----------



## justonemore

immanuelrx said:


> Don't stop now, keep on with the random nonsense. I am sure you have more Random crap up your sleeve to badmouth America and Americans. You missed a couple of presidents you can talk about in between. I am sure you can talk about how bad a certain movie is and how it represents how bad America is. Don't you think you can also post a random picture and random stats that have nothing to do with anything anybody is talking about?


Any clue as to your service to your fellow Americans or will you just claim that you served in the Army at x point? I served out my 8 years of contractual duty to the U.S. Army.. . I also served as a volunteer fireman in my community for many years...What do you have on your plate to state that you hae sacrificed anything at all for the communtiy you claim to represent?? My DD214 is available from the public offices in many Illinois counties where I proudly had them put into the public records. Where are yours? Do you even know what a DD214 is?


----------



## justonemore

immanuelrx said:


> ..and random stats. There is something missing to all this nonsense. Ah! Maybe you can include your review of a book on the NY Times best seller list? Maybe through in a little comment about an endangered animal that evil america is discriminating against? Your on a roll man, keep the nonsense coming!


Do you have anything factual against these stats or are you just another troll? Come on man...Prove what you have to say beyond one liner loser posts.


----------



## immanuelrx

justonemore said:


> Any clue as to your service to your fellow Americans or will you just claim that you served in the Army at x point? I served out my 8 years of contractual duty to the U.S. Army.. . I also served as a volunteer fireman in my community for many years...What do you have on your plate to state that you hae sacrificed anything at all for the communtiy you claim to represent??


And there it is, editing posts to add to your nonsense after you realized the original nonsense wasn't enough. Lets see, does it matter about my service? If I talk about my service, will you even believe me? I seem to forget sometimes that you were....what did you call yourself? Wartime veteran? I forget, what war was it that you served during? WWII? I also like how you say you served during a time of war, but there is no mention of actual deployment or combat. I can already tell with how you act on these threads that you were well liked by your "fellow infantrymen" during your heroic service. You also want to know what I have done for my community? When did this become a measuring contest? Do you need to validate your existence that much?
I am sorry I interrupted your nonsense, please continue.


----------



## immanuelrx

justonemore said:


> Do you have anything factual against these stats or are you just another troll? Come on man...Prove what you have to say beyond one liner loser posts.


And there is the troll comment. You really like to use that don't you. You are going to ruin your pocket if you keep pulling that card out. What do you want me to say about those stats? I don't care about the Reagan era or the stats as it pertains to this thread. What dojo did you train at to become such a good nonsense ninja?


----------



## justonemore

immanuelrx said:


> And there it is, editing posts to add to your nonsense after you realized the original nonsense wasn't enough. Lets see, does it matter about my service? If I talk about my service, will you even believe me? I seem to forget sometimes that you were....what did you call yourself? Wartime veteran? I forget, what war was it that you served during? WWII? I also like how you say you served during a time of war, but there is no mention of actual deployment or combat. I can already tell with how you act on these threads that you were well liked by your "fellow infantrymen" during your heroic service. You also want to know what I have done for my community? When did this become a measuring contest? Do you need to validate your existence that much?
> I am sorry I interrupted your nonsense, please continue.


I will continue to edit my posts as I see fit. Nothing from the main message has ever changed. Cry about it as much as you like, the main message has remained

You're the expert right? If the U.S. gave me the right to wear a medal for war time service, you have for some reason oe another decided they are incorrect. Good job hero...

If you're the expert as to other peoples service, then I would suggest that you might give an example of your own service to the nation before calling other vétérans unamerican. How about a simple MOS to start? too difficult? Are you airborne? From where? Air assault? From whre? EIB (if you have any clue as to what that means)? S.e.e.r. school? Any clue?

As a reminder, it was you that questioned my service first ( and once again on this thread), it is now up to you to provide some type of proof that you are the military expert when it comes down to giving awards to soldiers. I have already claimed that there is a difference between wartime soldiers, combat soldiers, and peacetime soldiers... As such a great vet, are you not aware of such différences or are you going off of personal opinion? As to my government V.A. status, I get 5 points advatange as to goverment hring ( inured vets get 10). Should you be in an actual position to determine my benefits, please P.M. me and I'll be more than happy to disqualify myself from the standards of service during my time...

If you are capable of giving a few good stories as to your service, I wil indeed belive that you served. What better reference than to actuaslly state what you lived through? I have done so in past posts, are you too shy to do the same? Again, start with your MOS and go from there... It shouldn't be too hard from such a hard core vet...


----------



## justonemore

immanuelrx said:


> And there is the troll comment. You really like to use that don't you. You are going to ruin your pocket if you keep pulling that card out. What do you want me to say about those stats? I don't care about the Reagan era or the stats as it pertains to this thread. What dojo did you train at to become such a good nonsense ninja?


Typical righty response. Obummmer is to blame and the stats from the repukes aren't relative. The whole thread has little to do with miltary values (you are the expert aren't you?), compared to right and left politics that have no value whatsoever as to American values. Play the military and olitics as you like but the fact is that both are supposed to be serving the American public versus special interests and overseas desires.


----------



## justonemore

immanuelrx said:


> ..and random stats. There is something missing to all this nonsense. Ah! Maybe you can include your review of a book on the NY Times best seller list? Maybe through in a little comment about an endangered animal that evil america is discriminating against? Your on a roll man, keep the nonsense coming!


No actual denial as to these stats versus a personal insult? Welcome to the interchange newbie troll. Endagered animals were mentioned by you. Not me. Welcome to the interchange newbie troll. The N.Y. Times best seller list? I have yet to see how that connects with the current conversation....Welcome to the Interchange newbie troll. Evil America? I have never claimed such versus stating that the U.S. is going in the wrong direction (both repukes and democraps). Welcome to the interchange newbie troll.


----------



## Hitch

Earl of Ormonde said:


> No we don't. But keep making stuff up if that amuses you and if insults are the only way you can respond.


A pardon for thousands of Irish soldiers who joined the British to fight Nazi Germany will help make amends for the shameful way they were treated after the Second World War, Ireland's Justice Minister has said.

The Irish Government has enacted legislation to grant an amnesty to the former troops - who were blacklisted and branded deserters at home.


Read more: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...lies-WWII-finally-pardoned.html#ixzz33lqgSPod 
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook


----------



## Hitch

A pardon for thousands of Irish soldiers who joined the British to fight Nazi Germany will help make amends for the shameful way they were treated after the Second World War, Ireland's Justice Minister has said.

The Irish Government has enacted legislation to grant an amnesty to the former troops - who were blacklisted and branded *deserters* at home.


Read more: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...lies-WWII-finally-pardoned.html#ixzz33lqgSPod 
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook


----------



## vpkozel

Does everything in this forum turn into juvenile name calling, poor analogies, and random false equivalencies?

This is one of the most fascinating and complex events in recent memory and would have hoped that adults could have a discussion with differing points of view or ideas on topics without mud slinging/devolution into total idiocy.

Perhaps not.....


----------



## MaxBuck

Earl of Ormonde said:


> No we don't. But keep making stuff up if that amuses you and if insults are the only way you can respond.


I think the poster you responded to has pretty well defined the limits of his capability in responding to those with whom he disagrees.


----------



## MaxBuck

One thing I've not quite come to terms with in this whole fiasco is whether Bergdahl was truly a deserter or, instead, an airheaded flake who just wandered off with an intention of returning at some indefinite time. He certainly doesn't seem to have been very stable. (And I'm not certain, from a military-justice standpoint, whether his intentions matter relative to deserter status.)

Does anyone else here see a pattern developing in Obama's geopolitical behavior post-Hillary? For all that I find Hillary to be distasteful, we don't seem to have had nearly so many foreign-policy gaffes when she was SoS. Now it just seems like amateur hour. I've lost much respect for Chuck Hagel in the wake of all this stuff, too.


----------



## 32rollandrock

Hitch said:


> LOL Note the standard lefty alteration . The quote 32 makes his complaint from doesnt mention bayonets. 32 has fabricated that nonsense. ho hum
> 
> _With that near-disaster over, the soldier recounted: "We averaged 18 to 22 kilometers a day on foot, clearing house to house, room to room, looking for Bergdahl. . . . We even went as far as rappelling down wells and crawling through tunnels to look for him." The standard procedure for recapturing Bergdahl was not "normal," the soldier noted. "He was very good with knives and trained to throw and fight hand-to-hand with knives. We did not know the mental state of Bergdahl at the time. All we knew was he left on his own, he caused us lots of hardship, and if we entered a room and saw him, we would put him down because he could attack us."_


Why do you keep calling me a lefty or liberal, as if it is some sort of insult? I'm not, but that's beside the point. People who do that sort of thing are the kind of people who can't think for themselves, so they resort to labeling people without stopping to think that there is nothing inherently wrong with being a liberal. When you think about it, it's the same sort of thought process present in racists. A racist denigrates and hates people of color the same way dittoheads denigrate and hate and label people who don't happen to agree with them. The labeling says a lot more about the person who does the labeling than the person to whom the label is attached.


----------



## SG_67

MaxBuck said:


> One thing I've not quite come to terms with in this whole fiasco is whether Bergdahl was truly a deserter or, instead, an airheaded flake who just wandered off with an intention of returning at some indefinite time. He certainly doesn't seem to have been very stable. (And I'm not certain, from a military-justice standpoint, whether his intentions matter relative to deserter status.)


Intension matters little but can be used as a mitigating circumstance. Technically, desertion is AWOL >30 days. I suppose if one is kidnapped and help against one's will then desertion really can't be charged, but that's for the lawyers to decide. If he walked off his base or away from his post without permission or leave, then he's at least AWOL. I think some of his other rants can be taken as evidence of intent as well, include that now infamous exchange between he and his father about how he was ashamed of his country and didn't want to be an American anymore, and dad's response of "follow your conscience".



> Does anyone else here see a pattern developing in Obama's geopolitical behavior post-Hillary? For all that I find Hillary to be distasteful, we don't seem to have had nearly so many foreign-policy gaffes when she was SoS. Now it just seems like amateur hour. I've lost much respect for Chuck Hagel in the wake of all this stuff, too.


I really don't think it has anything to do with Hillary vs. John Kerry or any others. Chuck Hagel is hardly someone qualified to be Sec. of Def. Of all the departments in the U.S. Government, the DoD is the most funded and the one most like a business. You really need someone with strong executive experience, or at least with previous administrative experience in there. Hagel would have probably been a better VA secretary.

I don't think Hillary was any kind of luminary. She was hardly a foreign policy intellectual and prior to being a Senator, really had no experience of any sort. John Kerry, for all his problems, probably has more insight into foreign affairs then and now. Either way, they're both following the bosses lead. I realize many probably don't like Kissinger or Condoleeza Rice, but at least they've spend their professional and academic careers studying foreign policy and affairs and can probably offer insight and advice sorely lacking within this administration.


----------



## vpkozel

MaxBuck said:


> Does anyone else here see a pattern developing in Obama's geopolitical behavior post-Hillary? For all that I find Hillary to be distasteful, we don't seem to have had nearly so many foreign-policy gaffes when she was SoS. Now it just seems like amateur hour. I've lost much respect for Chuck Hagel in the wake of all this stuff, too.


I don't think there were a lot of major things that happened early in her tenure and she really wasn't in long enough for the later issues to stick to her.

I do find it troubling that Obama seems woefully out of touch on almost every execution of his plans. To me he seems woefully out of his depth, which really should not come as much of a surprise given his previous experience. I think he may have also started to believe his own press and just expected to be feted for all his actions.

I am disappointed in Hagel, because I would have expected more from someone with his resume. But, in his defense, he and Kerry inherited a lot of these issues without a lot of options to choose from.

Some of these things are totally beyond control of the Oval Office or of State. I mean, really, what are you going to do when Russia invades the Ukraine (although it certainly does bring up the what if of them being in NATO)? We would be in the same boat if (when?) China chooses to throw its weight around.


----------



## SG_67

^ I think China will be a different issue. 

With Russia, at least the EU is there and Russia is surrounded by NATO countries, including new signatories who were once part of the Warsaw Pact. That's kind of a geopolitical firewall if you will. 

In southeast Asia, there really isn't a firewall like that. To the Obama administration's credit, they have been a bit tougher on China. Publically indicting the 5 Chinese officials and putting them on a wanted poster was an interesting move and not one I expected. They've taken a tough stance with their claim on the Senkaku Islands. We've beefed up our naval presence their and are starting to partner with other nations. 

China has never really been a naturally aggressive nation, for that matter Russia had not been either. China lacks the military muscle to really push itself around but has a pretty good defensive posture. Also, China is very economically sensitive. It's own currency is essentially worthless and no better than game tokens at your local Dave & Busters. It's in the midst of a financial bubble and highly reliant on foreign investment and technology. It really has no indigenous defense industry so most of it's high tech hardware is purchased from 3rd parties and typically surplus.


----------



## MaxBuck

32rollandrock said:


> Why do you keep calling me a lefty or liberal, as if it is some sort of insult?


It's become evident that Hitch regards anyone to the left of Joseph Goebbels to be a liberal.


----------



## WouldaShoulda

vpkozel said:


> I do find it troubling that Obama seems woefully out of touch on almost every execution of his plans. To me he seems woefully out of his depth, which really should not come as much of a surprise given his previous experience. I think he may have also started to believe his own press and just expected to be feted for all his actions.


Could Obama terminate the Taliban 5 while they sat in Gitmo??

Now that they are running loose in Qatar, will the drones get them??

We can only Hope!!


----------



## Chouan

SG_67 said:


> ^ I think China will be a different issue.
> 
> China has never really been a naturally aggressive nation, for that matter Russia had not been either. China lacks the military muscle to really push itself around but has a pretty good defensive posture. Also, China is very economically sensitive. It's own currency is essentially worthless and no better than game tokens at your local Dave & Busters. It's in the midst of a financial bubble and highly reliant on foreign investment and technology. It really has no indigenous defense industry so most of it's high tech hardware is purchased from 3rd parties and typically surplus.


Apart from their invasion and conquest of Tibet, of course, and their intervention in the Korean War on the pretext that UN troops were too near the Chinese border, and their invasion of India, and Vietnam, and their armed clashes with Russia over their border. Apart from that they've not been aggressive at all......


----------



## SG_67

Chouan said:


> Apart from their invasion and conquest of Tibet, of course, and their intervention in the Korean War on the pretext that UN troops were too near the Chinese border, and their invasion of India, and Vietnam, and their armed clashes with Russia over their border. Apart from that they've not been aggressive at all......


They haven't really been aggressive in the sense of western powers in trying to colonize or expand empire. Tibet is a disputed territory; I'm not taking sides and I'm by no means a China apologist. I'm just trying to put things into historical perspective.

Intervention in the Korean war made sense and it occurred only when we crossed over into N. Korea. As for disputes with India and other neighbors, these have been border disputes.

They haven't really been aggressive in the sense of, oh let's say Germany invading France, Russia or Poland.


----------



## Chouan

SG_67 said:


> They haven't really been aggressive in the sense of western powers in trying to colonize or expand empire. Tibet is a disputed territory; I'm not taking sides and I'm by no means a China apologist. I'm just trying to put things into historical perspective.
> 
> Intervention in the Korean war made sense and it occurred only when we crossed over into N. Korea. As for disputes with India and other neighbors, these have been border disputes.
> 
> They haven't really been aggressive in the sense of, oh let's say Germany invading France, Russia or Poland.


Haven't they? They control Mongolia and govern Manchuria, neither of which are Chinese territories, but which are part of China's empire. They invaded and conquered Tibet, a sovereign nation recognised by the rest of the world as such. It is only a "disputed" territory because China says that historically it was part of China's Empire. In the same way that Kurland, present day Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia, could be claimed by Germany as being part of the historical reich. Would you accept that excuse if Germany invaded? Similarly Russia could, on the same terms, invade Finland because it was once part of the Russian Empire. Would that then be acceptable because Finland is a "disputed" territory?


----------



## Tilton

Chouan said:


> Haven't they? They control Mongolia and govern Manchuria, neither of which are Chinese territories, but which are part of China's empire. They invaded and conquered Tibet, a sovereign nation recognised by the rest of the world as such. It is only a "disputed" territory because China says that historically it was part of China's Empire. In the same way that Kurland, present day Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia, could be claimed by Germany as being part of the historical reich. Would you accept that excuse if Germany invaded? Similarly Russia could, on the same terms, invade Finland because it was once part of the Russian Empire. Would that then be acceptable because Finland is a "disputed" territory?


Perhaps I'm confused here: My understanding of Manchuria is that it is a geographic region. Part lies within China and a small part within Russia. China, of course, governs the part within China. Is this not similar to, say, the Great Plains region in North America? Most falls within the US but some in Canada. Each country controls the part within their borders.

You should be more specific, too: China doesn't run Mongolia and they gave up even pretending to try in 2002. Mongolia is most closely aligned with Russia but the bulk of trading is done with China, which makes a lot of sense, China being just over the border and having a huge population. You are probably thinking of Inner Mongolia, which is part of the PRC.


----------



## SG_67

Chouan said:


> Haven't they? They control Mongolia and govern Manchuria, neither of which are Chinese territories, but which are part of China's empire. They invaded and conquered Tibet, a sovereign nation recognised by the rest of the world as such. It is only a "disputed" territory because China says that historically it was part of China's Empire. In the same way that Kurland, present day Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia, could be claimed by Germany as being part of the historical reich. Would you accept that excuse if Germany invaded? Similarly Russia could, on the same terms, invade Finland because it was once part of the Russian Empire. Would that then be acceptable because Finland is a "disputed" territory?


There's a difference between regions and nations, that's like saying Central America.

The fact is that historically, Russia and China have quarreled with their neighbors and one another regarding border disputes. China has not invaded the Phillipine Islands and has not tried to expand it's empire beyond it's own geography. In that sense also the U.S. has not. Consolidating territory and outright invasion of other sovereign nations are two different things.

Germany can no more lay claim to Estonia or Lithuania than can Russia.

I think you're missing the broader point. Neither Russia or China, in modern times (which is what I care about), has been aggressively expansionist. From that standpoint, I'm not terribly concerned about China trying to expand and invade and conquer other lands.


----------



## gaseousclay




----------



## Hitch

32rollandrock said:


> Why do you keep calling me a lefty or liberal, as if it is some sort of insult? I'm not, but that's beside the point. People who do that sort of thing are the kind of people who can't think for themselves, so they resort to labeling people without stopping to think that there is nothing inherently wrong with being a liberal. When you think about it, it's the same sort of thought process present in racists. A racist denigrates and hates people of color the same way dittoheads denigrate and hate and label people who don't happen to agree with them. The labeling says a lot more about the person who does the labeling than the person to whom the label is attached.


 Well Sweetie with the possible exception of justonemore your posts contain the highest concentration of labeling. And btw I especially like the way you worked in racism, you get a star for the day.

Thanx for the fine example of projection, liberals cant help but telegraph what they're doing.


----------



## Hitch

MaxBuck said:


> It's become evident that Hitch regards anyone to the left of Joseph Goebbels to be a liberal.


 Hmmm you got me,I do regard anyone left of a radical self proclaimed socialist a liberal.


----------



## Hitch

MaxBuck said:


> I think the poster you responded to has pretty well defined the limits of his capability in responding to those with whom he disagrees.


LOL poor Max . Your whine about being misrepresented and lied about fell flat so you resort to third party innuendo. Not that I expected less.


----------



## Hitch

*Brandon Friedman @BFriedmanDC** · 19h*

*Here's the thing about Bergdahl and the Jump-to-Conclusions mats: What if his platoon was long on psychopaths and short on leadership? (1/5)*


LOL Thats even more pathetic than 32 playing the racism card.


----------



## Hitch

Off to the wedding of my daughter, I leave the Republic is your most capable hands.

PFC Morris Walker, Staff Sgt. Kurt Curtiss, Staff Sgt. Michael Murphrey, 2nd Lt. Darryn Andrews & PFC Matthew Martinek. Five who lost their lives in search of Bowe Bergdahl. Rest in peace.


----------



## immanuelrx

justonemore said:


> No actual denial as to these stats versus a personal insult? Welcome to the interchange newbie troll. Endagered animals were mentioned by you. Not me. Welcome to the interchange newbie troll. The N.Y. Times best seller list? I have yet to see how that connects with the current conversation....Welcome to the Interchange newbie troll. Evil America? I have never claimed such versus stating that the U.S. is going in the wrong direction (both repukes and democraps). Welcome to the interchange newbie troll.


Man you are exhausting! Do me a favor. Go in a room where no one can hear you and say some of these words out loud. Newbie troll, Obummer, repukes, democraps. Sounds like something an adolescent boy would say, right? I am sure everyone here is tired of you and your random nonsense. Shoot, I am sure they are tired of me feeding and enabling you to post random nonsense. Since you only seem to want attention and the thread has moved on, you can PM me if you really want me to respond to your multiple comments on the same post, the posts you revised after you realized they were complete nonsense even to you, your measuring contests, assumptions, and requests of information pointless to this thread. Everyone else, I apologize for lowering myself to J1M's level. I will attempt to hold back commenting to his nonsense so as not to feed him in the future.


----------



## vpkozel

I am not crazy with the Administration apparently going after Bergdhal's squad mates. And if I was in the WH, I would assign someone to Susan Rice with strict orders to tackle her and put duct tape over her mouth if she ever tries to go on TV again.


----------



## justonemore

immanuelrx said:


> Man you are exhausting! Do me a favor. Go in a room where no one can hear you and say some of these words out loud. Newbie troll, Obummer, repukes, democraps. Sounds like something an adolescent boy would say, right? I am sure everyone here is tired of you and your random nonsense. Shoot, I am sure they are tired of me feeding and enabling you to post random nonsense. Since you only seem to want attention and the thread has moved on, you can PM me if you really want me to respond to your multiple comments on the same post, the posts you revised after you realized they were complete nonsense even to you, your measuring contests, assumptions, and requests of information pointless to this thread. Everyone else, I apologize for lowering myself to J1M's level. I will attempt to hold back commenting to his nonsense so as not to feed him in the future.


 Again. No real response to the questions asked. You're probably tiring yourself out trying to find ways to avoid the questions. You whine & cry over my choice of words but you seem to be just another troll that likes to dish it out versus taking it. Do I really need to remind you that it was you that started in with the personal insults? Is that not troll behavior? Go in a room where no one can hear you & say some of your posts out loud. You sound like a 10 year old girl bossing around a room full of adults. Other than you & your fellow republicans (hitch, s.g, etc ), I haven't gotten any other complaints... but... here you are speaking for "everyone". For some faceless guy on the internet, you sure do claim to know everyone's business. I will continue to say what I please here. If hitch can post the names of 5 dead guys multiple times in the same thread, then I can show reagan meeting with the people that are most likely responsible for their deaths. I will also continue calling all parties responsible for the decimation of my country as I see fit. If you're so bothered, perhaps you can hang out at one of the southern baptist websites?

PFC Morris Walker, Staff Sgt. Kurt Curtiss, Staff Sgt. Michael Murphrey, 2nd Lt. Darryn Andrews & PFC Matthew Martinek. Five more (out of thousands) who lost their lives thanks to reagan's sit down chat & pandering to taliban terrorists.


----------



## Chouan

SG_67 said:


> There's a difference between regions and nations, that's like saying Central America.
> 
> The fact is that historically, Russia and China have quarreled with their neighbors and one another regarding border disputes. China has not invaded the Phillipine Islands and has not tried to expand it's empire beyond it's own geography. In that sense also the U.S. has not. Consolidating territory and outright invasion of other sovereign nations are two different things.
> 
> Germany can no more lay claim to Estonia or Lithuania than can Russia.
> 
> _I think you're missing the broader point._ Neither Russia or China, in modern times (which is what I care about), has been aggressively expansionist. From that standpoint, I'm not terribly concerned about China trying to expand and invade and conquer other lands.


I think you'll find that I'm not. It depends upon how you define modern times. Russia has no more tried to conquer other lands in the last 60 or so years than China has, according to your view, yet you view Russia as a potential threat and China as not. Alternatively, China has engaged in aggression by invading Tibet, whilst at no point has Russia done anything like that, yet you believe Russia to be a potential threat and China not. The paradox in your view should be obvious.


----------



## Chouan

Tilton said:


> Perhaps I'm confused here: My understanding of Manchuria is that it is a geographic region. Part lies within China and a small part within Russia. China, of course, governs the part within China. Is this not similar to, say, the Great Plains region in North America? Most falls within the US but some in Canada. Each country controls the part within their borders.
> 
> You should be more specific, too: China doesn't run Mongolia and they gave up even pretending to try in 2002. Mongolia is most closely aligned with Russia but the bulk of trading is done with China, which makes a lot of sense, China being just over the border and having a huge population. You are probably thinking of Inner Mongolia, which is part of the PRC.


Manchuria is a geographical and ethnic region which is not part of China. The inhabitants aren't Chinese, neither is any form of Chinese their first language. Nevertheless, the region is ruled by China with a mixture of Chinese and Manchu administrators, always with Chinese officials in senior positions. 
You are right, of course, Inner Mongolia is included within the PRC, even though neither the region nor the people, as in Manchuria, are Chinese.
The only "right" to Manchuria and Mongolia that the PRC has is one of conquest, thus the idea that the PRC is not aggressive, or a potential threat is flawed.


----------



## SG_67

Chouan said:


> I think you'll find that I'm not. It depends upon how you define modern times. Russia has no more tried to conquer other lands in the last 60 or so years than China has, according to your view, yet you view Russia as a potential threat and China as not. Alternatively, China has engaged in aggression by invading Tibet, whilst at no point has Russia done anything like that, yet you believe Russia to be a potential threat and China not. The paradox in your view should be obvious.


Perhaps I've not been clear. I really don't view either country as a huge threat, not for now at least. Russia is surrounded by NATO and China does not have the capacity, causus beli, or opportunity to do more than annoy it's neighbors.

As for Tibet, this may sound harsh but who cares! That's a border dispute as far as I'm concerned and hardly a question of balance of power in the region. It's not as though Tibet is some lynchpin of Southeast Asia stability. Everyone seems to be doing just fine. It's the same as when the Russians invaded into northern Georgia.

What I'm implying, regarding your original premise, is that the strategic circumstances are much different in Europe vs. Southeast Asia. Hence, our response has been different. The U.S. Has to be, and has been so, more willing to slap China around a bit as it is an ascendant power. Russia is not. The controls on Russia are well established, although having laid dormant for nearly 20 years.


----------



## SG_67

Chouan said:


> Manchuria is a geographical and ethnic region which is not part of China. The inhabitants aren't Chinese, neither is any form of Chinese their first language. Nevertheless, the region is ruled by China with a mixture of Chinese and Manchu administrators, always with Chinese officials in senior positions.
> You are right, of course, Inner Mongolia is included within the PRC, even though neither the region nor the people, as in Manchuria, are Chinese.
> The only "right" to Manchuria and Mongolia that the PRC has is one of conquest, thus the idea that the PRC is not aggressive, or a potential threat is flawed.


I won't argue the diplomatic points with you as I will admit I'm ignorant of these nuances.

However, you speak like a historian and I will answer by saying, "who cares!" So what if Mongolia used to be independent. They really don't matter. Let China have it and let them possess it for eternity.

Balance of power is what matters. Now if China tried to grab South Korea, that's a different story, or Taiwan. If China and Japan went to war over a handful of rocks in the middle of the sea, that would also be a game changer.


----------



## vpkozel

Chouan said:


> Russia has no more tried to conquer other lands in the last 60 or so years than China has,


Hungarians, Czechs, Slovaks, Afghanis, Chechens, Georgians, & Ukrainians might have a tendency to disagree.....

And interestingly enough, in your definition of modern history, Germany has never been an aggressor.


----------



## Chouan

vpkozel said:


> Hungarians, Czechs, Slovaks, Afghanis, Chechens, Georgians, & Ukrainians might have a tendency to disagree.....


Well. the Russians would argue that in the case of the Hungarians and the Czechs, the Red Army came in at the invitation of those countries' governments. Similarly, the Russians went into Georgia and Chechnia in a peacekeeping role and to protect the Russians living there. As far as Afghanistan is concerned, again, the Red Army went in at the "invitation" of the then Afghan government. In the same way that we, the US and Britain, sent our armed forces into Afghanistan at the "invitation" of the Afghan government.
If what the Russians did makes them an aggressive state, then we in the West are the same.



vpkozel said:


> And interestingly enough, in your definition of modern history, Germany has never been an aggressor.


No, my point was that it had been suggested that China wasn't and hadn't been an aggressor. I suggested otherwise. I suggested that if China wasn't seen as an aggressor, for the reasons given, then Germany couldn't be seen as an aggressive state either. Of course, China is, and Germany was.
Again, we can't have it both ways.


----------



## vpkozel

Chouan said:


> Well. the Germans would argue that in the case of the Austrians and the Czechs, the German Army came in at the invitation of those countries' governments. Similarly, the Germans went into Poland to regain historically German territory. Hitler only went west after the rest of Europe declared war on him. .


Your statement with only names changed in the 1st sentence and minor changes to the second.

The bottom line is that Russia has been able to project its power and has definitely done so. So far in modern history - China, for a variety of reasons, has not been able to do so in a military fashion.


----------



## Chouan

vpkozel said:


> Your statement with only names changed in the 1st sentence and minor changes to the second.
> 
> The bottom line is that Russia has been able to project its power and has definitely done so. So far in modern history - China, for a variety of reasons, has not been able to do so in a military fashion.


Apart from invading and conquering Tibet, an independent, internationally recognised sovereign state.


----------



## Shaver

"The future is too good to waste on lies. And life is way too short to care for the damnation of others, as well as to spend it helping fools with their ideas that are wrong. I have seen their ideas and I am ashamed to even be american. The horror of the self-righteous arrogance that they thrive in. It is all revolting."

Reminiscent of anything.......?


----------



## SG_67

Shaver said:


> "The future is too good to waste on lies. And life is way too short to care for the damnation of others, as well as to spend it helping fools with their ideas that are wrong. I have seen their ideas and I am ashamed to even be american. The horror of the self-righteous arrogance that they thrive in. It is all revolting."
> 
> Reminiscent of anything.......?


Admit it, You're an errand boy, sent by grocery clerks to collect the bill!


----------



## justonemore

More hidden insults from one easliy insulted? But of course you're excused because you used a line from the same movie as a response.


----------



## Shaver

justonemore said:


> More personal insults from one easliy insulted? But of course you aren't a troll because you used a line from the movie as a response.


Far be it from me to jump to SG's defence, but - I believe that he may just have been quoting....... am I naive?


----------



## justonemore

Shaver said:


> Far be it from me to jump to SG's defence, but - I believe that he may just have been quoting....... am I naive?


Oh I agree, but as I didn't see the quotation marks or any claim that it came from the same movie, I thought it was meant as a direct insult towards you. Clarity in communication seems quite important to S.G. as could be seen in this thread when he stated I was being somehow "cryptic".


----------



## SG_67

Shaver said:


> Far be it from me to jump to SG's defence, but - I believe that he may just have been quoting....... am I naive?


Yes...It was meant to be a humorous reference to the same movie.

Some folks need to develop a sense of humor.


----------



## Shaver

^ It really is a bonkers email from BB, though, and genuinely puts me in mind of Kurtz. How on Earth did this fellow escape the notice of his superior officers?


----------



## SG_67

^ That's an excellent question and one that should be investigated. I would add the same for Major Nidal Hassan.


----------



## justonemore

Shaver said:


> ^ It really is a bonkers email from BB, though, and genuinely puts me in mind of Kurtz. How on Earth did this fellow escape the notice of his superior officers?


It didn't escape them, they ignored it in order to maintain their fitness report.


----------



## SG_67

justonemore said:


> More hidden insults from one easliy insulted? But of course you're excused because you used a line from the same movie as a response.


I realize this may come as a foreign concept, but it is possible for people to disagree and still maintain a sense of humor with one another.


----------



## Tilton

Chouan said:


> Manchuria is a geographical and ethnic region which is not part of China. The inhabitants aren't Chinese, neither is any form of Chinese their first language. Nevertheless, the region is ruled by China with a mixture of Chinese and Manchu administrators, always with Chinese officials in senior positions.
> You are right, of course, Inner Mongolia is included within the PRC, even though neither the region nor the people, as in Manchuria, are Chinese.
> The only "right" to Manchuria and Mongolia that the PRC has is one of conquest, thus the idea that the PRC is not aggressive, or a potential threat is flawed.


Manchuria is unquestionably part of China. Further, I don't think you're getting it. Not being ethnically Chinese does not mean they shouldn't be part of China. PRC recognizes 56 individual ethnic groups, including Manchu, which is the third largest ethnic group in China (admittedly, it is still a small share of the population). Should the US/Mexico border be moved north by 500mi because most of the people in that area are Hispanic? Of course not, a country does not need to be 100% ethnically homogeneous, nor should it be. Manchuria is also home to at least three other ethnic groups aside from Manchu. Do they each get their own nation? Don't be ridiculous, Manchuria has been part of China since the 1300's and despite the border conflicts between China, Russia, and Japan, they identify - and have for centuries - as Chinese.


----------



## Shaver

SG_67 said:


> I realize this may come as a foreign concept, but it is possible for people to disagree and still maintain a sense of humor with one another.


How dare you!?? Why I oughta....


----------



## Shaver

SG_67 said:


> ^ That's an excellent question and one that should be investigated. I would add the same for Major Nidal Hassan.


And again, reminiscent of something?

You can almost hear him thinking "I watched a snail crawl along the edge of a straight razor. That's my dream. That's my nightmare. Crawling, slithering, along the edge of a straight razor . . . and surviving"


----------



## justonemore

SG_67 said:


> I realize this may come as a foreign concept, but it is possible for people to disagree and still maintain a sense of humor with one another.


Sure hero. Perhaps you can lead by example? As you like to twist things to suit you needs, I do the same.


----------



## WouldaShoulda

justonemore said:


> It didn't escape them, they ignored it in order to maintain their fitness report.


That's what happens when the Army is run like the Post Office.


----------



## SG_67

justonemore said:


> Sure hero. Perhaps you can lead by example? As you like to twist things to suit you needs, I do the same.


Press!


----------



## Tiger

SG_67 said:


> Congress does not have to declare war in order for us to go to war; this has been shown in previous conflicts and is not without precedent. I'll remind you that the Civil War was not really a war in this case, but a rebellion against the federal government, yet both sides took prisoners of war.


Just wanted to duck underneath the flying ordnance and chime in on this point. 1) Just because the U.S. has gone to war repeatedly without a congressional declaration of war does not make it constitutional! Professor Thomas Woods has debunked this kind of misleading (and dangerous) thinking in depth. 2) The War for Southern Independence was not a "rebellion against the federal government." It was a legal and constitutional right of states that had ratified the Constitution to later decide to rescind that ratification. There is far more support for the legality of secession than there is for its supposed illegality.


----------



## immanuelrx

It is easy to blame command regarding a situation like this, but like any organization, the bosses don't always know what the grunts are doing. It is true that things do get swept under the rug, but lets put this in perspective. A Company commander can be in charge of 100-200 people. He doesn't know what is going on at every moment of every day. The command team goes through a lot of training to spot things wrong with their soldiers, but the platoon sergeants and squad leaders don't always get that training. Maybe his first line supervisor spotted something, but not enough to sound any alarms. I can tell you, especially in a deployed environment but more so the first time, most everyone deals with some level of sadness. It isn't always evident that there is a real problem. As far as an investigation, when this happened it received a lot of spot light and every question was asked to every person. I am sure the decision has already been made as to who is responsible other than Bergdahl. The Army is a complicated animal. It varies from company to company, job to job. I have held many jobs in the military and have experienced first hand how different each environment is. The company during my combat mos days are far different from my admin days and intelligence days. I have experienced bad leaders who have paid for their mistakes, I but I have experienced mostly good. This is not as simple as blaming the commander or blaming the army that he walked. The Hassan incident was a complete failure of leadership, but that isn't the standard. The Army is a microcosm of America. People are different across the US and they are expected to come together with different backgrounds and have each other's back. It isn't easy.


----------



## SG_67

Tiger said:


> Just wanted to duck underneath the flying ordnance and chime in on this point. 1) Just because the U.S. has gone to war repeatedly without a congressional declaration of war does not make it constitutional! Professor Thomas Woods has debunked this kind of misleading (and dangerous) thinking in depth. 2) The War for Southern Independence was not a "rebellion against the federal government." It was a legal and constitutional right of states that had ratified the Constitution to later decide to rescind that ratification. There is far more support for the legality of secession than there is for its supposed illegality.


I'm not suggesting whether it is or isn't constitutional. I'm just saying that it's been done.

In fact, it actually releases is from having to treat these people as prisoners of war and rather like illegal combatants and mercenaries.


----------

