What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

American held hostage by al Qaeda appeals to Obama... (1 Viewer)

Well, it was Obama that yanked troops out in defiance of his advisors...
Yeah because just one or two more years and we would have had it!We were this close!
Actually, things were pretty stable before we pulled out. Certainly much better than they are now. Going in to Iraq in the first place was a mistake, but pulling out when we did compounded that mistake greatly.

 
Well, it was Obama that yanked troops out in defiance of his advisors...
Yeah because just one or two more years and we would have had it!We were this close!
Actually, things were pretty stable before we pulled out. Certainly much better than they are now. Going in to Iraq in the first place was a mistake, but pulling out when we did compounded that mistake greatly.
Like I said, we were this close.

Thanks Obama.

 
There is a price to be paid for these events, beyond the dollars there is the real human impact. Let's ignore that impact in the Middle East for a moment and look at it from the perspective of this thread. We have a system that sends our youngest and physically strongest into some of the worst situations imaginable. Beyond the physical injuries (and deaths) they face legitimate concern for their lives for days/weeks/months at a time without a system to help them learn to cope with that. Can you imagine that? Try to imagine that from the moment you left your home until the time you returned you had to worry that every object in the road might explode horribly maiming or killing you or your closest friends. Imagine a life where sometimes even your home wasn't a safe haven (like a FOB). Have you ever feared for your life for even a second? Multiply that by 86,400 and you have only gotten to a day.

It's a life that sends thousands of our strongest back to our homes but with incredibly limited options for seeking the mental help that they desperately need to return to society and where so many of them end up mentally traumatized, homeless, alcoholic and at extreme risk for suicide (far above normal societal averages for all of those things).

And people who have never lived that life, or even come close, will sit in the comfort and safety of their homes vigorously typing away acting like they are in a position of authority over these individuals with statements of of absolute judgement on them? That's crazy.

Sure Obama may have doubled down on stupid by pulling out too early, after all you can't put the toothpaste back in the tube (then again after over a decade staying longer was not a proven strategy for success either). But it was a horribly mismanaged situation from the very beginning that from many perspectives could be seen as more of an attempt at war profiteering (on the backs of our sons) than a legitimate attempt to find and punish those responsible for 9/11. No, the failure of this war and everything that followed, including the Bergdal situation falls squarely on the shoulders of George W. Bush.

 
Good lord is it necessary to wrap the entirety of the recent history in the middle east into what the administration did with Bergdahl and more importantly just releasing 5 combatants who had been killing Americans, Afghans and innocents and likely will return to that very soon?

 
Last edited by a moderator:
And, yes, I do think Bergdahl deserves to be punished. But those calling it a bad deal to bring him home can ### # ####. Preferably G.W.'s.

 
Chaka said:
And, yes, I do think Bergdahl deserves to be punished. But those calling it a bad deal to bring him home can ### # ####. Preferably G.W.'s.
It's really like two different things, and somehow they got linked by the administration.

Over here we have a guy who betrayed his brothers in arms and his country..... but who deserves our loyalty (even if he didn't feel loyal to us) because regardless he's an American.

And then allll the way over there we have 5 men who are absolutely sick killers whose view of the world is absolutely antihuman, anti-civilization.​
We could have done the first thing a long time ago without doing the second thing.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Chaka said:
And, yes, I do think Bergdahl deserves to be punished. But those calling it a bad deal to bring him home can ### # ####. Preferably G.W.'s.
It's really like two different things, and somehow they got linked by the administration.

Over here we have a guy who betrayed his brothers in arms and his country..... but who deserves our loyalty (even if he didn't feel loyal to us) because regardless he's an American.

And then allll the way over there we have 5 men who are absolutely sick killers whose view of the world is absolutely antihuman, anti-civilization.​
We could have done the first thing a long time ago without doing the second thing.
I blame Bush. I don't know which one yet, but it's definitely one of them.

 
Chaka said:
And, yes, I do think Bergdahl deserves to be punished. But those calling it a bad deal to bring him home can ### # ####. Preferably G.W.'s.
It's really like two different things, and somehow they got linked by the administration.

Over here we have a guy who betrayed his brothers in arms and his country..... but who deserves our loyalty (even if he didn't feel loyal to us) because regardless he's an American.

And then allll the way over there we have 5 men who are absolutely sick killers whose view of the world is absolutely antihuman, anti-civilization.​
We could have done the first thing a long time ago without doing the second thing.
I blame Bush. I don't know which one yet, but it's definitely one of them.
Gotta be Jeb.

 
Chaka said:
And, yes, I do think Bergdahl deserves to be punished. But those calling it a bad deal to bring him home can ### # ####. Preferably G.W.'s.
It's really like two different things, and somehow they got linked by the administration.

Over here we have a guy who betrayed his brothers in arms and his country..... but who deserves our loyalty (even if he didn't feel loyal to us) because regardless he's an American.

And then allll the way over there we have 5 men who are absolutely sick killers whose view of the world is absolutely antihuman, anti-civilization.​
We could have done the first thing a long time ago without doing the second thing.
I blame Bush. I don't know which one yet, but it's definitely one of them.
Gotta be Jeb.
Barbara.. never trusted that old bag

:D

 
Chaka said:
And people who have never lived that life, or even come close, will sit in the comfort and safety of their homes vigorously typing away acting like they are in a position of authority over these individuals with statements of of absolute judgement on them? That's crazy.
OK, I served and did 2 tours in the ME and did not go AWOL. Can I sit in absolute judgement?

 
Chaka said:
And people who have never lived that life, or even come close, will sit in the comfort and safety of their homes vigorously typing away acting like they are in a position of authority over these individuals with statements of of absolute judgement on them? That's crazy.
OK, I served and did 2 tours in the ME and did not go AWOL. Can I sit in absolute judgement?
I thought I was very thorough but I apologize if I did not make a clear enough distinction between those who served and those who sit from the safety and comfort of their computer screen.

 
Chaka said:
And people who have never lived that life, or even come close, will sit in the comfort and safety of their homes vigorously typing away acting like they are in a position of authority over these individuals with statements of of absolute judgement on them? That's crazy.
OK, I served and did 2 tours in the ME and did not go AWOL. Can I sit in absolute judgement?
I thought I was very thorough but I apologize if I did not make a clear enough distinction between those who served and those who sit from the safety and comfort of their computer screen.
Got it. Bush and Obama have nothing to do with this, this is strictly on Bergdahl's decision to abandon his group.

 
So the Bergdahl deal was Bush's fault? Does that mean Bush gets the credit for the success in Yemen?

:lmao:
It is kind of "funny" [odd] that Bush was accused to wearing the flag as a shield and yet any criticism of this "deal" is met with charges of not really loving our country or our soldiers.

 
Chaka said:
And people who have never lived that life, or even come close, will sit in the comfort and safety of their homes vigorously typing away acting like they are in a position of authority over these individuals with statements of of absolute judgement on them? That's crazy.
OK, I served and did 2 tours in the ME and did not go AWOL. Can I sit in absolute judgement?
I thought I was very thorough but I apologize if I did not make a clear enough distinction between those who served and those who sit from the safety and comfort of their computer screen.
Got it. Bush and Obama have nothing to do with this, this is strictly on Bergdahl's decision to abandon his group.
Military jurisprudence accounts for that and he will be tried and punished accordingly.

 
Chaka said:
And people who have never lived that life, or even come close, will sit in the comfort and safety of their homes vigorously typing away acting like they are in a position of authority over these individuals with statements of of absolute judgement on them? That's crazy.
OK, I served and did 2 tours in the ME and did not go AWOL. Can I sit in absolute judgement?
I thought I was very thorough but I apologize if I did not make a clear enough distinction between those who served and those who sit from the safety and comfort of their computer screen.
Got it. Bush and Obama have nothing to do with this, this is strictly on Bergdahl's decision to abandon his group.
It was Bush's decision to send our troops all over the world in a haphazard fashion and it was Obama's decision to bring Bergdahl home.

 
Seriously guys. We were attacked by, what was it 18 Saudi nationals (including bin Laden)?. We knew they were being trained in the region on the Afghanistan/Pakistan border. And our response is to halfheartedly oust the Taliban (at least the argument can be made that they were tangentially involved in 9/11) and invade freaking Iraq which had absolutely nothing to do with 9/11.

Does no one see how those decisions, and poor execution and mismanagement of same, directly led to our current situation?

 
Seriously guys. We were attacked by, what was it 18 Saudi nationals (including bin Laden)?. We knew they were being trained in the region on the Afghanistan/Pakistan border. And our response is to halfheartedly oust the Taliban (at least the argument can be made that they were tangentially involved in 9/11) and invade freaking Iraq which had absolutely nothing to do with 9/11.

Does no one see how those decisions, and poor execution and mismanagement of same, directly led to our current situation?
The Bergdahl situation?

 
Chaka said:
And people who have never lived that life, or even come close, will sit in the comfort and safety of their homes vigorously typing away acting like they are in a position of authority over these individuals with statements of of absolute judgement on them? That's crazy.
OK, I served and did 2 tours in the ME and did not go AWOL. Can I sit in absolute judgement?
I thought I was very thorough but I apologize if I did not make a clear enough distinction between those who served and those who sit from the safety and comfort of their computer screen.
Got it. Bush and Obama have nothing to do with this, this is strictly on Bergdahl's decision to abandon his group.
It was Bush's decision to send our troops all over the world in a haphazard fashion and it was Obama's decision to bring Bergdahl home.
It was Bergdahl's decision to walk. He volunteered, period. Bush & Obama have nothing to do with this.

 
Seriously guys. We were attacked by, what was it 18 Saudi nationals (including bin Laden)?. We knew they were being trained in the region on the Afghanistan/Pakistan border. And our response is to halfheartedly oust the Taliban (at least the argument can be made that they were tangentially involved in 9/11) and invade freaking Iraq which had absolutely nothing to do with 9/11.

Does no one see how those decisions, and poor execution and mismanagement of same, directly led to our current situation?
The Bergdahl situation?
Among other things.

Military jurisprudence is ruling the day in the Bergdahl matter, as it should.

 
Chaka said:
And people who have never lived that life, or even come close, will sit in the comfort and safety of their homes vigorously typing away acting like they are in a position of authority over these individuals with statements of of absolute judgement on them? That's crazy.
OK, I served and did 2 tours in the ME and did not go AWOL. Can I sit in absolute judgement?
I thought I was very thorough but I apologize if I did not make a clear enough distinction between those who served and those who sit from the safety and comfort of their computer screen.
Got it. Bush and Obama have nothing to do with this, this is strictly on Bergdahl's decision to abandon his group.
It was Bush's decision to send our troops all over the world in a haphazard fashion and it was Obama's decision to bring Bergdahl home.
It was Bergdahl's decision to walk. He volunteered, period. Bush & Obama have nothing to do with this.
Why does the Bush/Obama thing seem to be a point of contention for you?

Bergdahl is in the system as he should be and he is being dealt with appropriately as he should be. What's the problem?

 
Chaka said:
And people who have never lived that life, or even come close, will sit in the comfort and safety of their homes vigorously typing away acting like they are in a position of authority over these individuals with statements of of absolute judgement on them? That's crazy.
OK, I served and did 2 tours in the ME and did not go AWOL. Can I sit in absolute judgement?
I thought I was very thorough but I apologize if I did not make a clear enough distinction between those who served and those who sit from the safety and comfort of their computer screen.
Got it. Bush and Obama have nothing to do with this, this is strictly on Bergdahl's decision to abandon his group.
It was Bush's decision to send our troops all over the world in a haphazard fashion and it was Obama's decision to bring Bergdahl home.
It was Bergdahl's decision to walk. He volunteered, period. Bush & Obama have nothing to do with this.
It seems that the first post in this quote block could also apply the one two up from here.
 
Seriously guys. We were attacked by, what was it 18 Saudi nationals (including bin Laden)?. We knew they were being trained in the region on the Afghanistan/Pakistan border. And our response is to halfheartedly oust the Taliban (at least the argument can be made that they were tangentially involved in 9/11) and invade freaking Iraq which had absolutely nothing to do with 9/11.

Does no one see how those decisions, and poor execution and mismanagement of same, directly led to our current situation?
The Bergdahl situation?
Among other things.Military jurisprudence is ruling the day in the Bergdahl matter, as it should.
Then no, I don't see how anything about the war in Iraq led directly to this situation.

 
Seriously guys. We were attacked by, what was it 18 Saudi nationals (including bin Laden)?. We knew they were being trained in the region on the Afghanistan/Pakistan border. And our response is to halfheartedly oust the Taliban (at least the argument can be made that they were tangentially involved in 9/11) and invade freaking Iraq which had absolutely nothing to do with 9/11.

Does no one see how those decisions, and poor execution and mismanagement of same, directly led to our current situation?
This is like the burrito principle.

We are looking at something really distasteful so hey let's wrap allll this stuff around it and see if we can mask it.

Really what you are getting at is flat out suggesting we should just release these 5 terrorists/fighters and maybe even close Gtmo unilaterally because after all what are we fighting them for and why are they fighting us?

That whole conversation and that entire policy could be had and accomplished (or opposed) separately and apart from dealing for Bergdahl. He could have been had for a felafel sandwich or 20 regular fighters or anything in between back in the day. It's like we just released these five unilaterally and it just appears that Bergdahl was connected, when really he wasn't.

 
This is Jen Psaki, spokesgal for State, and Meghan Kelly.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=otCwipzn3jo

It amuses me when people make defenses for the administration with arguments that even the administration itself isn't making. Here State's position is that 1. Bergdahl hasn't been convicted yet so let's presume him innocent, and 2. hey these five psychopaths haven't officially returned to battle yet, so it's not like they've started killing Americans and Afghans again, yet, so overall it's a zero sum result right now.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
What about the argument they made after the initial swap? The administration said that this was simply a prison exchange since the war in Afghanistan was winding down. Didn't they just announce this week that the troops would be staying longer? So much for the war being over.

 
Bergdahl is in the system as he should be and he is being dealt with appropriately as he should be. What's the problem?
1) Other people died trying to find him.

2) We let 5 terrorists go free.
Why do people always raise just the men who (allegedly) died trying to find Bergdahl, how many people died or were wounded at the hands of these five before they were captured and how many died or were wounded trying to capture them?

 
Chaka said:
And people who have never lived that life, or even come close, will sit in the comfort and safety of their homes vigorously typing away acting like they are in a position of authority over these individuals with statements of of absolute judgement on them? That's crazy.
OK, I served and did 2 tours in the ME and did not go AWOL. Can I sit in absolute judgement?
I thought I was very thorough but I apologize if I did not make a clear enough distinction between those who served and those who sit from the safety and comfort of their computer screen.
Got it. Bush and Obama have nothing to do with this, this is strictly on Bergdahl's decision to abandon his group.
It was Bush's decision to send our troops all over the world in a haphazard fashion and it was Obama's decision to bring Bergdahl home. trade 5 Taliban commanders for him
fyp

 
If every guy in the former platoon agreed that there was no way he did t desert... And if the plan is to lock him up for life anyhow... Then what was the upside in freeing him from captivity while giving up gitmo detainees to boot?

 
Well, it was Obama that yanked troops out in defiance of his advisors...
Yeah because just one or two more years and we would have had it!We were this close!
Actually, things were pretty stable before we pulled out. Certainly much better than they are now. Going in to Iraq in the first place was a mistake, but pulling out when we did compounded that mistake greatly.
as it turns out , ruthless despots are good for the ME
 
If every guy in the former platoon agreed that there was no way he did t desert... And if the plan is to lock him up for life anyhow... Then what was the upside in freeing him from captivity while giving up gitmo detainees to boot?
Ironically, we had to free an American soldier so we could bring him to justice and lock him up for life; and we are told in order to do that we had to free terrorists whom we had previously captured and locked up for life.

:confused:

 
Last edited by a moderator:
If every guy in the former platoon agreed that there was no way he did t desert... And if the plan is to lock him up for life anyhow... Then what was the upside in freeing him from captivity while giving up gitmo detainees to boot?
Because we never leave a man behind. Except the times when we do. Or we don't negotiate with terrorists. Except when we do.

Or something.

 
If every guy in the former platoon agreed that there was no way he did t desert... And if the plan is to lock him up for life anyhow... Then what was the upside in freeing him from captivity while giving up gitmo detainees to boot?
Ironically, we had to free an American soldier so we could bring him to justice and lock him up for life; and we are told in order to do that we had to free terrorists whom we had previously captured and locked up for life.

:confused:
Correct me if I am wrong, but of the five Taliban detainees, none were sentenced or even tried.

 
If every guy in the former platoon agreed that there was no way he did t desert... And if the plan is to lock him up for life anyhow... Then what was the upside in freeing him from captivity while giving up gitmo detainees to boot?
Because we never leave a man behind. Except the times when we do. Or we don't negotiate with terrorists. Except when we do.

Or something.
maybe it wouldn't be so confusing if we didn't call every single enemy we face "terrorists".

 
If every guy in the former platoon agreed that there was no way he did t desert... And if the plan is to lock him up for life anyhow... Then what was the upside in freeing him from captivity while giving up gitmo detainees to boot?
the official military statement for years was Berghahl did nothing wrong and not go AWOL. The story did not change until his platoon started speaking up after the trade.

 
If every guy in the former platoon agreed that there was no way he did t desert... And if the plan is to lock him up for life anyhow... Then what was the upside in freeing him from captivity while giving up gitmo detainees to boot?
Ironically, we had to free an American soldier so we could bring him to justice and lock him up for life; and we are told in order to do that we had to free terrorists whom we had previously captured and locked up for life.

:confused:
Correct me if I am wrong, but of the five Taliban detainees, none were sentenced or even tried.
I guess that's right seeing as how the military tribunals under Bush got halted and the trials for the most part under Obama never got underway.

The NY Times has good summaries from all the public portions of the Gtmo detainees, they all have nasty records.

 
Seriously guys. We were attacked by, what was it 18 Saudi nationals (including bin Laden)?. We knew they were being trained in the region on the Afghanistan/Pakistan border. And our response is to halfheartedly oust the Taliban (at least the argument can be made that they were tangentially involved in 9/11) and invade freaking Iraq which had absolutely nothing to do with 9/11.

Does no one see how those decisions, and poor execution and mismanagement of same, directly led to our current situation?
The Bergdahl situation?
Among other things.Military jurisprudence is ruling the day in the Bergdahl matter, as it should.
Then no, I don't see how anything about the war in Iraq led directly to this situation.
Well, that says something about us both.

 
If every guy in the former platoon agreed that there was no way he did t desert... And if the plan is to lock him up for life anyhow... Then what was the upside in freeing him from captivity while giving up gitmo detainees to boot?
Ironically, we had to free an American soldier so we could bring him to justice and lock him up for life; and we are told in order to do that we had to free terrorists whom we had previously captured and locked up for life.

:confused:
Correct me if I am wrong, but of the five Taliban detainees, none were sentenced or even tried.
These guys were deputy level leaders with the Taliban, working directly with Al-Queda, and tied to the deaths of thousands of innocent people.

Whether or not they should have been officially tried is a different discussion. None of them were ever going to see the light of day again without this deal.

 
If every guy in the former platoon agreed that there was no way he did t desert... And if the plan is to lock him up for life anyhow... Then what was the upside in freeing him from captivity while giving up gitmo detainees to boot?
the official military statement for years was Berghahl did nothing wrong and not go AWOL. The story did not change until his platoon started speaking up after the trade.
They spoke up well before the trade. Rolling Stone did an article on it in 2012 with interviews. It was clear he went AWOL.

 
If every guy in the former platoon agreed that there was no way he did t desert... And if the plan is to lock him up for life anyhow... Then what was the upside in freeing him from captivity while giving up gitmo detainees to boot?
the official military statement for years was Berghahl did nothing wrong and not go AWOL. The story did not change until his platoon started speaking up after the trade.
They spoke up well before the trade. Rolling Stone did an article on it in 2012 with interviews. It was clear he went AWOL.
that's true I forgot about that. Why do you think the official statements from the military said he didn't go AWOL while they kept promoting him? Do you think the Obama administration pressured them to do so?

 
If every guy in the former platoon agreed that there was no way he did t desert... And if the plan is to lock him up for life anyhow... Then what was the upside in freeing him from captivity while giving up gitmo detainees to boot?
the official military statement for years was Berghahl did nothing wrong and not go AWOL. The story did not change until his platoon started speaking up after the trade.
They spoke up well before the trade. Rolling Stone did an article on it in 2012 with interviews. It was clear he went AWOL.
that's true I forgot about that. Why do you think the official statements from the military said he didn't go AWOL while they kept promoting him? Do you think the Obama administration pressured them to do so?
I dont know what the military protocol is on this so its hard to say. Maybe they needed to talk to him before making anything official.

 
This is not going to be a popular question and I am seriously not trying to be insensitive in asking but I am looking for a sincere well considered response from someone who knows about these things (IOW not something regurgitated from Fox News).

It sucks to put more fighters into the operating theater but what additional tactical or strategic advantages are these five "deputy level leaders" going to bring that didn't already exist?

Doesn't it seem reasonable that all these guys had been replaced a long time ago?

 
This is not going to be a popular question and I am seriously not trying to be insensitive in asking but I am looking for a sincere well considered response from someone who knows about these things (IOW not something regurgitated from Fox News).

It sucks to put more fighters into the operating theater but what additional tactical or strategic advantages are these five "deputy level leaders" going to bring that didn't already exist?

Doesn't it seem reasonable that all these guys had been replaced a long time ago?
what's you point?

 
This is not going to be a popular question and I am seriously not trying to be insensitive in asking but I am looking for a sincere well considered response from someone who knows about these things (IOW not something regurgitated from Fox News).

It sucks to put more fighters into the operating theater but what additional tactical or strategic advantages are these five "deputy level leaders" going to bring that didn't already exist?

Doesn't it seem reasonable that all these guys had been replaced a long time ago?
what's you point?
His point is...what if these guys are a dime a dozen and releasing them does not really add or subtract any significant amount to the enemy...does it matter then if we gave them up to get one of our own back?

 
This is not going to be a popular question and I am seriously not trying to be insensitive in asking but I am looking for a sincere well considered response from someone who knows about these things (IOW not something regurgitated from Fox News).

It sucks to put more fighters into the operating theater but what additional tactical or strategic advantages are these five "deputy level leaders" going to bring that didn't already exist?

Doesn't it seem reasonable that all these guys had been replaced a long time ago?
what's you point?
His point is...what if these guys are a dime a dozen and releasing them does not really add or subtract any significant amount to the enemy...does it matter then if we gave them up to get one of our own back?
read that and let us know your thoughts after

http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/bowe-bergdahl-released/who-are-5-guantanamo-detainees-swapped-exchange-bergdahl-n119376

 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top