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

[humpback]

It needs to be stressed again and again that the release of Bergdahl was part of a larger deal, of which we are not privy to all of the details. But the notion of a straight 5 for 1 trade, which so many people here and elsewhere are making, is apparently not accurate. So please stop arguing that "the price was too high"; you don't know everything that we paid for.

That being said, IMO even if it was a straight 5 for 1 trade, the price was not too high.

Do you factor in the lives of those who may have been lost searching for him?

In terms of this trade? No.

So where do they count if not as part of the "price"?

They are American lives that were sadly lost in a never ending war in which the results will at best be negligible. I feel terrible about them, and every soldier lost in the last 13 years. What has it all been for?But in terms of this trade discussion, not relevant.

Any one else want to chime in on this? Do people actually believe it's irrelevant?

How about you critical thinkers on the left- what say ye?

Not according to the ranking military personnel. You bring the soldier home.

We still keep trying to bring pieces (literally pieces) of soldiers home from Vietnam.

But how do you know they didn't consider the lives lost?

Also, I'd argue 1 American soldier is worth a hell of a lot more then 5 soon to be released Taliban members.

Id certainly feel that way about your son or your father and even more-so when we get reports he is really sickly.

I'm not really sure what you're saying here, but I'm talking about the US soldiers killed, not the Taliban members. Where do they factor in this for you?

 

[BigSteelThrill]

It needs to be stressed again and again that the release of Bergdahl was part of a larger deal, of which we are not privy to all of the details. But the notion of a straight 5 for 1 trade, which so many people here and elsewhere are making, is apparently not accurate. So please stop arguing that "the price was too high"; you don't know everything that we paid for.

That being said, IMO even if it was a straight 5 for 1 trade, the price was not too high.

Do you factor in the lives of those who may have been lost searching for him?

In terms of this trade? No.

So where do they count if not as part of the "price"?

They are American lives that were sadly lost in a never ending war in which the results will at best be negligible. I feel terrible about them, and every soldier lost in the last 13 years. What has it all been for?But in terms of this trade discussion, not relevant.

Any one else want to chime in on this? Do people actually believe it's irrelevant?

How about you critical thinkers on the left- what say ye?

Not according to the ranking military personnel. You bring the soldier home.

We still keep trying to bring pieces (literally pieces) of soldiers home from Vietnam.

But how do you know they didn't consider the lives lost?

Also, I'd argue 1 American soldier is worth a hell of a lot more then 5 soon to be released Taliban members.

Id certainly feel that way about your son or your father and even more-so when we get reports he is really sickly.

I'm not really sure what you're saying here, but I'm talking about the US soldiers killed, not the Taliban members. Where do they factor in this for you?

Do you factor in the lives of those who may have been lost searching for him?

Im asking you how you know the lives lost were not factored in by those searching for him and by those negotiating?

 

[avoiding injuries]

This seems like a non-issue. Yes, it's very sad and unfortunate. However, we cannot negotiate with terrorists and when he went to that part of the world he assumed the risk. Clearly this is an AQ ploy to get involved with the U.S. elections. I'm curious to see if and how the republicans make this an issue??

We'll see. I don't think they are even dumb enough to say anything here unless Obama and team were to negotiate.

Tim, are we really going to go to page 1 to find hypocrisy?

the discussion you're quoting has nothing to do with a United States soldier.

Nope, just Obama negotiating with terrorists.

 

[mr roboto]

I don't exactly know what point you are making with a bunch of partisan parrots on Twitter MT you are better than this straw man.

Attack Obama. Is the point.

Do you believe a person can legitimately critique this particular decision without 'attacking Obama'? If you say no, you will have solidified yourself as a partisan hack that's no better than those Twitter idiots.

Depends on the critique.

So there are types of critiques of this specific decision that would not be classified as 'attacking Obama'?

 

[BigSteelThrill]

I don't exactly know what point you are making with a bunch of partisan parrots on Twitter MT you are better than this straw man.

Attack Obama. Is the point.

Do you believe a person can legitimately critique this particular decision without 'attacking Obama'? If you say no, you will have solidified yourself as a partisan hack that's no better than those Twitter idiots.

Depends on the critique.

So there are types of critiques of this specific decision that would not be classified as 'attacking Obama'?

Assuredly.

 

[Todd Andrews]

I'm curious to know too. I did not serve.

Thank you to those that did. I’m proud of you and the United States military. You represent one of my favorite parts of being an American. Our might in the field of battle.

Deserters should be investigated, court martialed, and tried for desertion which is what I believe should happen to Bergdahl. I think he’s an #######.

Now answer my question. What’s it to you? And what does my not serving have to do with that bull#### article?

oh my bad, not good posting then. I thought you were calling something else bull####.

You not serving has everything to do with it as how can you judge a man if you haven't walked a mile in his shoes.

I m going to assume you have no opinions on anything you havent personally done then. Brilliant.

 

[humpback]

It needs to be stressed again and again that the release of Bergdahl was part of a larger deal, of which we are not privy to all of the details. But the notion of a straight 5 for 1 trade, which so many people here and elsewhere are making, is apparently not accurate. So please stop arguing that "the price was too high"; you don't know everything that we paid for.

That being said, IMO even if it was a straight 5 for 1 trade, the price was not too high.

Do you factor in the lives of those who may have been lost searching for him?

In terms of this trade? No.

So where do they count if not as part of the "price"?

They are American lives that were sadly lost in a never ending war in which the results will at best be negligible. I feel terrible about them, and every soldier lost in the last 13 years. What has it all been for?But in terms of this trade discussion, not relevant.

Any one else want to chime in on this? Do people actually believe it's irrelevant?

How about you critical thinkers on the left- what say ye?

Not according to the ranking military personnel. You bring the soldier home.

We still keep trying to bring pieces (literally pieces) of soldiers home from Vietnam.

But how do you know they didn't consider the lives lost?

Also, I'd argue 1 American soldier is worth a hell of a lot more then 5 soon to be released Taliban members.

Id certainly feel that way about your son or your father and even more-so when we get reports he is really sickly.

I'm not really sure what you're saying here, but I'm talking about the US soldiers killed, not the Taliban members. Where do they factor in this for you?

Do you factor in the lives of those who may have been lost searching for him?

Im asking you how you know the lives lost were not factored in by those searching for him and by those negotiating?

Where did I say they weren't? I'm asking how you factor them in. Tim said he doesn't, curious if others agree with him.

 

[Todd Andrews]

Great thread, guys.

Quick question for Saints: Are you pissed that the deal was done, that it wasn't done sooner, that we're in a war in Afghanistan at all, that Obama increased our presence, or that Tim is posting stuff?

Thx, will answer yours!

Saints enjoys my posts. We always have a good discussion.

That's fine, I just have no idea what he's arguing for. Or against.

Saints usually makes a lot of vaguely anti-Obama posts full of questions and queries which meander about without much point.

But he seems like a very nice guy. My impression is that he is a conservative trying to make the rest of the world think all conservatives arent KooKs.

 

[TxBuckeye]

One of the main critiques against Susan Rice and Obama is that they called this guy a "hero". I think that was a big error, but it's sort of funny seeing conservatives refer to the guy as a patriot and a hero- obviously very few people knew the backstory.

Which I don't understand. I remember when this happened. Within a week or so, there were already accounts in the paper that pointed to the fact this individual left his position voluntarily. So how it is just now supposedly "coming out" is beyond me. Especially for people that should assuredly be "in the know."

 

[Hang 10]

One of the main critiques against Susan Rice and Obama is that they called this guy a "hero". I think that was a big error, but it's sort of funny seeing conservatives refer to the guy as a patriot and a hero- obviously very few people knew the backstory.

Which I don't understand. I remember when this happened. Within a week or so, there were already accounts in the paper that pointed to the fact this individual left his position voluntarily. So how it is just now supposedly "coming out" is beyond me. Especially for people that should assuredly be "in the know."

Simple. Susan Rice = Baghdad Bob

 

[squistion]

So much stupid in this thread.

 

[Todd Andrews]

So much stupid in this thread.

I agree. So many arguing for why we should leave a US soldier in the hands of the enemy. Pretty unbelievable.

 

[quickhands]

Rick Perry suggests this trade was done in order to distract the public from the VA scandal. Oops.

The swap wasnt. But that rose garden turd was.

 

[MaxThreshold]

So much stupid in this thread.

I agree. So many arguing for why we should leave a US soldier in the hands of the enemy. Pretty unbelievable.

You can stop your fake outrage as you haven't been concerned for last 5 years. Everyone knows why you are showing so much interest now.

Maybe I missed the thread you started about it 5 years ago. Link?

 

[BigSteelThrill]

Where did I say they weren't? I'm asking how you factor them in. Tim said he doesn't, curious if others agree with him.

The soldiers killed, as an abstract?

They shine a bright light on the cost of the continuing search for him (or any captive soldier) in addition to the costs already paid when fulfilling our commitments to our soldiers.

 

[quickhands]

I honestly believe that at least part of the outrage over this story runs deeper even than a general disapproval of President Obama's foreign policy. It is a sense of frustration over this entire war and the fact that its not going to end well. We've spent 14 years, lost countless lives, and in the end we're going to leave behind an unstable, completely corrupt government that has to negotiate with the Taliban for its survival.

Afghanistan turned out to be the same abyss for us as it was for the Soviets, and for the British before them.

Well I honestly believe that if Obama used the trade as a way to distract from the VA #### storm by taking a dump in the rose garden.

I also believe that mr. bergdahl made it worse by showing up looking taliban and speaking pashtoon or Arabic or whatever.

I also believe that if Mr.Bergdahl had shaved his beard and said thank god, I said what I thought would help bowe a lot of this media crap would be 10 percent of what it is now.

I also believe timsochet over rates Obama's foreign policy presidential standing.

I believe that if Bergdahl had been killed by the taliban no one would hold it against the President.

 

[humpback]

Where did I say they weren't? I'm asking how you factor them in. Tim said he doesn't, curious if others agree with him.

The soldiers killed, as an abstract?

They shine a bright light on the cost of the continuing search for him (or any captive soldier) in addition to the costs already paid when fulfilling our commitments to our soldiers.

Is there a cap on the number of soldiers you'd be willing to sacrifice in order to rescue one, or do you subscribe to "at any cost"? Would it make a difference if that one was a deserter?

 

[BigSteelThrill]

Where did I say they weren't? I'm asking how you factor them in. Tim said he doesn't, curious if others agree with him.

The soldiers killed, as an abstract?

They shine a bright light on the cost of the continuing search for him (or any captive soldier) in addition to the costs already paid when fulfilling our commitments to our soldiers.

Is there a cap on the number of soldiers you'd be willing to sacrifice in order to rescue one, or do you subscribe to "at any cost"? Would it make a difference if that one was a deserter?

1) We don't sacrifice them.

2) No cap on our efforts. As I stated, we still try to return Vietnam soldiers whole or part. Its ingrained as part of the culture of our military forces and the commitment.

3) You say "deserter" which is different then AWOL. He would need to have faced (even if not present) a UCMJ Article 85 (or Article 86) and judged accordingly.

He hasn't as of yet. But if he had, and found guilty, then it would certainly change his designation as a soldier and what our commitments are to him.

 

[Todd Andrews]

Bergdahl is the worst thing you can be in the military: a buddyfu**er.

And we still dont leave any of our soldiers, including him, in the hands of our enemies. Only we have the right to hang our soldiers. The enemy can either kill them on the battlefield or get killed by them, and we get to charge Bergdahl and convict him if appropriate.

All goofs making this about politics are vile.

 

[quickhands]

Bergdahl is the worst thing you can be in the military: a buddyfu**er.

And we still dont leave any of our soldiers, including him, in the hands of our enemies. Only we have the right to hang our soldiers. The enemy can either kill them on the battlefield or get killed by them, and we get to charge Bergdahl and convict him if appropriate.

All goofs making this about politics are vile.

Uh oh

 

[Homer J Simpson]

Great thread, guys.

Quick question for Saints: Are you pissed that the deal was done, that it wasn't done sooner, that we're in a war in Afghanistan at all, that Obama increased our presence, or that Tim is posting stuff?

Thx, will answer yours!

Hey Homer.

Am I pissed about the deal itself? No. Not really. I feel for Bowe Bergdahl, his family, his town. I admit I get caught up in details. Evaluating it straight up, or altogether with everything that's happened because he left his squad, either way, it doesn't add up as an even exchange.

I just can't be pissed, I won't be angry, that this guy is home. I feel bad at heart that he ever joined the military, I don't think he belonged there.

Am I pissed it wasn't done sooner? Yeah, maybe. I guess I don't understand why if the deal was good the president waited so long. From Rolling Stone and all the news reports it sounds like there have been offers from and to the Taliban for BB since 2009. I can't believe they would not have taken their Top 5, or these 5 at least much sooner. If the deal's good then it should have been done earlier.

About Afghanistan: my personal view is that we went there to defeat AQ and the Taliban was protecting AQ. If the Taliban comes back to power then AQ likely comes back there. That seems very primed to happen. - I did support Pres. Obama on Afghanistan, I have since he was running 2007-08. - However, my feeling is that if he never intended to win out, if the plan was to just let the Taliban return, I have no idea why we have been there since 2009.

I have no problem with Tim. It's a free-for-all, and if we wanted to hear ourselves think we wouldn't be here. Every so often whether it's him or someone else I learn something, or try to.

I appreciate 100% your response.

I'm really drunk right now, so I'm choosing not to respond.

 

[Homer J Simpson]

Name them, I'll go with Diane Feinstein. How many more you need? Pretty much everyone except Harry Reid

1.1 Diane Feinstein

How often do you hold up Diane Feinstein or Harry F***ing Reid as good people we should listen to?

I'm a dirty friggin liberal and I'd watch Harry Reid drown without even a thought of getting wet. That's your guy? You might want to re-think that.

 

[PatsWillWin]

It needs to be stressed again and again that the release of Bergdahl was part of a larger deal, of which we are not privy to all of the details. But the notion of a straight 5 for 1 trade, which so many people here and elsewhere are making, is apparently not accurate. So please stop arguing that "the price was too high"; you don't know everything that we paid for.

That being said, IMO even if it was a straight 5 for 1 trade, the price was not too high.

Do you factor in the lives of those who may have been lost searching for him?

In terms of this trade? No.

So where do they count if not as part of the "price"?

They are American lives that were sadly lost in a never ending war in which the results will at best be negligible. I feel terrible about them, and every soldier lost in the last 13 years. What has it all been for?But in terms of this trade discussion, not relevant.

Any one else want to chime in on this? Do people actually believe it's irrelevant?

How about you critical thinkers on the left- what say ye?

I think the lives of those six soldiers who died looking for him are on him and if what we're hearing is true, he should face the charges a soldier accused of his crimes should normally face. I don't see what it has to do with the "price" we "paid" in the trade.

ETA: Not on the left.

NOBODY F###ING DIED LOOKING FOR HIM.

Well then that's even more of a reason to not factor it into the "price" of the trade.

 

[Homer J Simpson]

I love stuff like this: flip-flops.

God help me for even remotely trying to defend those who parrot talking points on Twitter, but wasn't the possibility that he was a deserter just a recent story? IOW one could hope for his release months ago but change their minds legitimately based on new info (not that I should give those loons that much credit).If it's not a recent story, then those people are foolish.

Read the Rolling Stone story from 4 years ago.

 

[Homer J Simpson]

It needs to be stressed again and again that the release of Bergdahl was part of a larger deal, of which we are not privy to all of the details. But the notion of a straight 5 for 1 trade, which so many people here and elsewhere are making, is apparently not accurate. So please stop arguing that "the price was too high"; you don't know everything that we paid for.

That being said, IMO even if it was a straight 5 for 1 trade, the price was not too high.

Do you factor in the lives of those who may have been lost searching for him?

In terms of this trade? No.

So where do they count if not as part of the "price"?

They are American lives that were sadly lost in a never ending war in which the results will at best be negligible. I feel terrible about them, and every soldier lost in the last 13 years. What has it all been for?But in terms of this trade discussion, not relevant.

Any one else want to chime in on this? Do people actually believe it's irrelevant?

How about you critical thinkers on the left- what say ye?

Well, since the whole thing is a giant load of bull#### how about you tell me what you think?

 

[Homer J Simpson]

Separate issue:

Can someone explain how...

... in the country that practically invented tv, films and the art of the image...

... in the country that created the political consulting profession, where the impression has become more important than the deed...

...in an administration that may actually be the "Greatest" ever in working the media, being on top of every little issue, message, talking point for and against on every possible available medium and outlet...

...how did we end up with the final image of this situation being on the one hand the Taliban handing over a weak, crying, shaved soldier with an overlay stating "Don't Come Back," juxtaposed with Taliban elite celerating the return of their Top 5 leaders in captivity?

How did the Obama team allow such a ridiculous propaganda victory to be handed to the Taliban?

Lots of reasons:1. Poor messaging by the White House.

2. A badly demoralized Taliban looking for any kind of propaganda in their favor.

3. A certain segment of the American public which hates President Obama so much that they are eager to believe anything that makes him look bad.

There are a lot of people critical of this that don't "hate" Obama. Just stop with this already. If someone is critical of him doesn't mean they hate him. According to your thought process there is a vast majority here that "hate" you.

Name them. Which folks in this thread are generally pro Obama, yet are criticizing him here?

Just be honest. It's the same anti-Obama folks with more BEHNNNNNGHAZZZZIIIII-RAGE!

I suggest you read up on news articles and other sources to see that people being critical of him on this don't hate him. It's laughable to watch you guys defend him no matter what they do.

People playing politics right now should rightly feel a huge burn when everything that people are screaming about turns out to be nothing.

I'd love for Feinstein and Reid to lose their asses next time around.

 

[jonessed]

It needs to be stressed again and again that the release of Bergdahl was part of a larger deal, of which we are not privy to all of the details. But the notion of a straight 5 for 1 trade, which so many people here and elsewhere are making, is apparently not accurate. So please stop arguing that "the price was too high"; you don't know everything that we paid for.

That being said, IMO even if it was a straight 5 for 1 trade, the price was not too high.

Do you factor in the lives of those who may have been lost searching for him?

In terms of this trade? No.

So where do they count if not as part of the "price"?

They are American lives that were sadly lost in a never ending war in which the results will at best be negligible. I feel terrible about them, and every soldier lost in the last 13 years. What has it all been for?But in terms of this trade discussion, not relevant.

Any one else want to chime in on this? Do people actually believe it's irrelevant?

How about you critical thinkers on the left- what say ye?

Well, since the whole thing is a giant load of bull#### how about you tell me what you think?

 

[humpback]

Where did I say they weren't? I'm asking how you factor them in. Tim said he doesn't, curious if others agree with him.

The soldiers killed, as an abstract?

They shine a bright light on the cost of the continuing search for him (or any captive soldier) in addition to the costs already paid when fulfilling our commitments to our soldiers.

Is there a cap on the number of soldiers you'd be willing to sacrifice in order to rescue one, or do you subscribe to "at any cost"? Would it make a difference if that one was a deserter?

1) We don't sacrifice them.

2) No cap on our efforts. As I stated, we still try to return Vietnam soldiers whole or part. Its ingrained as part of the culture of our military forces and the commitment.

3) You say "deserter" which is different then AWOL. He would need to have faced (even if not present) a UCMJ Article 85 (or Article 86) and judged accordingly.

He hasn't as of yet. But if he had, and found guilty, then it would certainly change his designation as a soldier and what our commitments are to him.

This is all a hypothetical- right now we really can't say if he was AWOL, a deserter, a traitor, or one of our best soldiers, and we don't know how many guys died looking for him. The issue I have is with people who essentially say "none of that matters". That's pretty absurd IMO, of course it matters.

 

[humpback]

It needs to be stressed again and again that the release of Bergdahl was part of a larger deal, of which we are not privy to all of the details. But the notion of a straight 5 for 1 trade, which so many people here and elsewhere are making, is apparently not accurate. So please stop arguing that "the price was too high"; you don't know everything that we paid for.

That being said, IMO even if it was a straight 5 for 1 trade, the price was not too high.

Do you factor in the lives of those who may have been lost searching for him?

In terms of this trade? No.

So where do they count if not as part of the "price"?

They are American lives that were sadly lost in a never ending war in which the results will at best be negligible. I feel terrible about them, and every soldier lost in the last 13 years. What has it all been for?But in terms of this trade discussion, not relevant.

Any one else want to chime in on this? Do people actually believe it's irrelevant?

How about you critical thinkers on the left- what say ye?

Well, since the whole thing is a giant load of bull#### how about you tell me what you think?

There's that critical thinking you guys love to talk about!

 

[humpback]

Bergdahl is the worst thing you can be in the military: a buddyfu**er.

And we still dont leave any of our soldiers, including him, in the hands of our enemies. Only we have the right to hang our soldiers. The enemy can either kill them on the battlefield or get killed by them, and we get to charge Bergdahl and convict him if appropriate.

All goofs making this about politics are vile.

Yes, even if 100 good soldiers die trying to save 1 scumbag, the price doesn't matter!

 

[jonessed]

Where did I say they weren't? I'm asking how you factor them in. Tim said he doesn't, curious if others agree with him.

The soldiers killed, as an abstract?

They shine a bright light on the cost of the continuing search for him (or any captive soldier) in addition to the costs already paid when fulfilling our commitments to our soldiers.

Is there a cap on the number of soldiers you'd be willing to sacrifice in order to rescue one, or do you subscribe to "at any cost"? Would it make a difference if that one was a deserter?

1) We don't sacrifice them.

2) No cap on our efforts. As I stated, we still try to return Vietnam soldiers whole or part. Its ingrained as part of the culture of our military forces and the commitment.

3) You say "deserter" which is different then AWOL. He would need to have faced (even if not present) a UCMJ Article 85 (or Article 86) and judged accordingly.

He hasn't as of yet. But if he had, and found guilty, then it would certainly change his designation as a soldier and what our commitments are to him.

This is all a hypothetical- right now we really can't say if he was AWOL, a deserter, a traitor, or one of our best soldiers, and we don't know how many guys died looking for him. The issue I have is with people who essentially say "none of that matters". That's pretty absurd IMO, of course it matters.

They are just bull####ting... well, not necessarily bull####ting, but definitely talking bull####. It's all bull#### these days. Now you prepare that Fetzer valve with some 3-in-1 oil and some gauze pads. And I'm gonna need about ten quartz of anti-freeze, preferably Prestone. No, no make that Quaker State. Get on it! Pronto dumb####! There's a lot of bull####ting to clean up in here!

 

[Todd Andrews]

Bergdahl is the worst thing you can be in the military: a buddyfu**er.

And we still dont leave any of our soldiers, including him, in the hands of our enemies. Only we have the right to hang our soldiers. The enemy can either kill them on the battlefield or get killed by them, and we get to charge Bergdahl and convict him if appropriate.

All goofs making this about politics are vile.

Yes, even if 100 good soldiers die trying to save 1 scumbag, the price doesn't matter!

But 100 soldiers didnt die trying to save him, nor did 6. You lose.

 

[jon_mx]

Would we have really released these five terrorists anyways? I doubt it based on their resumes, but who knows.

 

[Todd Andrews]

Would we have really released these five terrorists anyways? I doubt it based on their resumes, but who knows.

Absolutely. Not even in question. The Taliban are covered by the Geneva Convention and they arent considered terrorists. They are considered enemy combatants. Unless a POW is charged with war crimes, they all get released when the conflict ends. We have had these guys in Gitmo for years and years without enough to charge them. They would probably be let go before 2015. Now they will be in Qatar until mid 2015, when they can go back to Afghanistan where we supposedly wont have any more combat troops. So they go back to Afghanistan when they probably would have anyway and we get a US soldier back.

 

[humpback]

Bergdahl is the worst thing you can be in the military: a buddyfu**er.

And we still dont leave any of our soldiers, including him, in the hands of our enemies. Only we have the right to hang our soldiers. The enemy can either kill them on the battlefield or get killed by them, and we get to charge Bergdahl and convict him if appropriate.

All goofs making this about politics are vile.

Yes, even if 100 good soldiers die trying to save 1 scumbag, the price doesn't matter!

But 100 soldiers didnt die trying to save him, nor did 6. You lose.

What if they did? You lose.

 

[Homer J Simpson]

Where did I say they weren't? I'm asking how you factor them in. Tim said he doesn't, curious if others agree with him.

The soldiers killed, as an abstract?

They shine a bright light on the cost of the continuing search for him (or any captive soldier) in addition to the costs already paid when fulfilling our commitments to our soldiers.

Is there a cap on the number of soldiers you'd be willing to sacrifice in order to rescue one, or do you subscribe to "at any cost"? Would it make a difference if that one was a deserter?

1) We don't sacrifice them.

2) No cap on our efforts. As I stated, we still try to return Vietnam soldiers whole or part. Its ingrained as part of the culture of our military forces and the commitment.

3) You say "deserter" which is different then AWOL. He would need to have faced (even if not present) a UCMJ Article 85 (or Article 86) and judged accordingly.

He hasn't as of yet. But if he had, and found guilty, then it would certainly change his designation as a soldier and what our commitments are to him.

This is all a hypothetical- right now we really can't say if he was AWOL, a deserter, a traitor, or one of our best soldiers, and we don't know how many guys died looking for him. The issue I have is with people who essentially say "none of that matters". That's pretty absurd IMO, of course it matters.

They are just bull####ting... well, not necessarily bull####ting, but definitely talking bull####. It's all bull#### these days. Now you prepare that Fetzer valve with some 3-in-1 oil and some gauze pads. And I'm gonna need about ten quartz of anti-freeze, preferably Prestone. No, no make that Quaker State.Get on it! Pronto dumb####! There's a lot of bull####ting to clean up in here!

So when are you going to admit that you were wrong?

 

[StrikeS2k]

Would we have really released these five terrorists anyways? I doubt it based on their resumes, but who knows.

Absolutely. Not even in question. The Taliban are covered by the Geneva Convention and they arent considered terrorists. They are considered enemy combatants. Unless a POW is charged with war crimes, they all get released when the conflict ends. We have had these guys in Gitmo for years and years without enough to charge them. They would probably be let go before 2015. Now they will be in Qatar until mid 2015, when they can go back to Afghanistan where we supposedly wont have any more combat troops. So they go back to Afghanistan when they probably would have anyway and we get a US soldier back.

 

[Todd Andrews]

Bergdahl is the worst thing you can be in the military: a buddyfu**er.

And we still dont leave any of our soldiers, including him, in the hands of our enemies. Only we have the right to hang our soldiers. The enemy can either kill them on the battlefield or get killed by them, and we get to charge Bergdahl and convict him if appropriate.

All goofs making this about politics are vile.

Yes, even if 100 good soldiers die trying to save 1 scumbag, the price doesn't matter!

But 100 soldiers didnt die trying to save him, nor did 6. You lose.

What if they did? You lose.

No. You lose.

 

[StrikeS2k]

Homer really Timmying this thread tonight.

 

[jonessed]

Where did I say they weren't? I'm asking how you factor them in. Tim said he doesn't, curious if others agree with him.

The soldiers killed, as an abstract?

They shine a bright light on the cost of the continuing search for him (or any captive soldier) in addition to the costs already paid when fulfilling our commitments to our soldiers.

Is there a cap on the number of soldiers you'd be willing to sacrifice in order to rescue one, or do you subscribe to "at any cost"? Would it make a difference if that one was a deserter?

1) We don't sacrifice them.

2) No cap on our efforts. As I stated, we still try to return Vietnam soldiers whole or part. Its ingrained as part of the culture of our military forces and the commitment.

3) You say "deserter" which is different then AWOL. He would need to have faced (even if not present) a UCMJ Article 85 (or Article 86) and judged accordingly.

He hasn't as of yet. But if he had, and found guilty, then it would certainly change his designation as a soldier and what our commitments are to him.

This is all a hypothetical- right now we really can't say if he was AWOL, a deserter, a traitor, or one of our best soldiers, and we don't know how many guys died looking for him. The issue I have is with people who essentially say "none of that matters". That's pretty absurd IMO, of course it matters.

They are just bull####ting... well, not necessarily bull####ting, but definitely talking bull####. It's all bull#### these days. Now you prepare that Fetzer valve with some 3-in-1 oil and some gauze pads. And I'm gonna need about ten quartz of anti-freeze, preferably Prestone. No, no make that Quaker State.Get on it! Pronto dumb####! There's a lot of bull####ting to clean up in here!

So when are you going to admit that you were wrong?

I have no idea what you are even talking about. You seem really angry about something, but it's hard to make out exactly what it is.

 

[humpback]

Bergdahl is the worst thing you can be in the military: a buddyfu**er.

And we still dont leave any of our soldiers, including him, in the hands of our enemies. Only we have the right to hang our soldiers. The enemy can either kill them on the battlefield or get killed by them, and we get to charge Bergdahl and convict him if appropriate.

All goofs making this about politics are vile.

Yes, even if 100 good soldiers die trying to save 1 scumbag, the price doesn't matter!

But 100 soldiers didnt die trying to save him, nor did 6. You lose.

What if they did? You lose.

No. You lose.

Why bother saying no one died trying to save him, why not say it doesn't matter how many did, even if that one was a POS traitor?

 

[Widbil83]

Homer really Timmying this thread tonight.

"Nobody died looking for him!" I read this literally as I am watching 6 guys from his unit giving an interview saying a bunch of troops died looking for him.

 

[Homer J Simpson]

Homer really Timmying this thread tonight.

"Nobody died looking for him!" I read this literally as I am watching 6 guys from his unit giving an interview saying a bunch of troops died looking for him.

And those guys have no idea what they're talking about.

Whoever is interviewing them should ask what Republican operative booked the interview.

 

[Homer J Simpson]

Homer really Timmying this thread tonight.

Feel free to argue anything I've said, junior.

 

[Homer J Simpson]

Where did I say they weren't? I'm asking how you factor them in. Tim said he doesn't, curious if others agree with him.

The soldiers killed, as an abstract?

They shine a bright light on the cost of the continuing search for him (or any captive soldier) in addition to the costs already paid when fulfilling our commitments to our soldiers.

Is there a cap on the number of soldiers you'd be willing to sacrifice in order to rescue one, or do you subscribe to "at any cost"? Would it make a difference if that one was a deserter?

1) We don't sacrifice them.

2) No cap on our efforts. As I stated, we still try to return Vietnam soldiers whole or part. Its ingrained as part of the culture of our military forces and the commitment.

3) You say "deserter" which is different then AWOL. He would need to have faced (even if not present) a UCMJ Article 85 (or Article 86) and judged accordingly.

He hasn't as of yet. But if he had, and found guilty, then it would certainly change his designation as a soldier and what our commitments are to him.

This is all a hypothetical- right now we really can't say if he was AWOL, a deserter, a traitor, or one of our best soldiers, and we don't know how many guys died looking for him. The issue I have is with people who essentially say "none of that matters". That's pretty absurd IMO, of course it matters.

They are just bull####ting... well, not necessarily bull####ting, but definitely talking bull####. It's all bull#### these days. Now you prepare that Fetzer valve with some 3-in-1 oil and some gauze pads. And I'm gonna need about ten quartz of anti-freeze, preferably Prestone. No, no make that Quaker State.Get on it! Pronto dumb####! There's a lot of bull####ting to clean up in here!

So when are you going to admit that you were wrong?

I have no idea what you are even talking about. You seem really angry about something, but it's hard to make out exactly what it is.

Apparently you missed this from last night:

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/04/world/middleeast/can-gi-be-tied-to-6-lost-lives-facts-are-murky.html

Whenever you're ready to apologize, I'm hear to listen.

 

[Homer J Simpson]

Homer really Timmying this thread tonight.

"Nobody died looking for him!" I read this literally as I am watching 6 guys from his unit giving an interview saying a bunch of troops died looking for him.

Please read the link above...I don't want to have to embarrass you like jonessed.

 

[timschochet]

Strike gave you a compliment Homer.

 

[Homer J Simpson]

Strike gave you a compliment Homer.

Keep telling yourself that, GB.

 

[PatsWillWin]

Homer, that article is not nearly as definitive as you are on the conclusions you are apparently drawing from that article.

 

[jon_mx]

Would we have really released these five terrorists anyways? I doubt it based on their resumes, but who knows.

Absolutely. Not even in question. The Taliban are covered by the Geneva Convention and they arent considered terrorists. They are considered enemy combatants. Unless a POW is charged with war crimes, they all get released when the conflict ends. We have had these guys in Gitmo for years and years without enough to charge them. They would probably be let go before 2015. Now they will be in Qatar until mid 2015, when they can go back to Afghanistan where we supposedly wont have any more combat troops. So they go back to Afghanistan when they probably would have anyway and we get a US soldier back.

So we would have returned Osama Bin Laden?