Obama breaks the law [Archive] - The Gemstone IV Players' Corner

Tgo01

05-31-2014, 08:24 PM

Story. (http://www.aol.com/article/2014/05/31/gop-lawmakers-prisoner-exchange-violated-law/20903894/?icid=maing-grid7|responsive|dl16|sec1_lnk2%26pLid%3D482759)

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Two Republican lawmakers on Saturday accused President Barack Obama of breaking the law by approving the release of five Afghan detainees held at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, in exchange for a U.S. soldier believed held by Islamist insurgents for five years.

The White House agreed that actions were taken in spite of legal requirements and cited "unique and exigent circumstances" as justification.

Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl, 28, of Hailey, Idaho, was handed over to U.S. special operations forces by the Taliban. In return, five Afghans who were held at a U.S. detention facility in Cuba were released to the custody of the government of Qatar, which served as a go-between in negotiations for the trade.

Rep. Howard "Buck" McKeon of California and Sen. James Inhofe of Oklahoma said in a statement that Obama is required by law to notify Congress 30 days before any terrorists are transferred from the U.S. facility. They said Obama also is required to explain how the threat posed by such terrorists has been substantially mitigated.

McKeon is chairman of the House Armed Services Committee. Inhofe is the top Republican on the Senate Armed Services Committee.

In response, the White House said it moved as quickly as possible given the opportunity that arose to secure Bergdahl's release. Citing "these unique and exigent circumstances," the White House said a decision was made to go ahead with the transfer despite the legal requirement of 30 days advance notice to Congress.

While saying they celebrate Bergdahl's release, McKeon and Inhofe warned that the exchange "may have consequences for the rest of our forces and all Americans."

"Our terrorist adversaries now have a strong incentive to capture Americans. That incentive will put our forces in Afghanistan and around the world at even greater risk," they said.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, a Nevada Democrat, said in a statement that "the safe return of Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl is an answer to the prayers of the Bergdahl family and a powerful reinforcement of our nation's commitment to leave no service member behind."

Pretty smart move on Obama's part. Blatantly break the law and if anyone says anything just say they must hate America and the military because he broke the law for a good reason.

Warriorbird

05-31-2014, 08:44 PM

Story. (http://www.aol.com/article/2014/05/31/gop-lawmakers-prisoner-exchange-violated-law/20903894/?icid=maing-grid7|responsive|dl16|sec1_lnk2%26pLid%3D482759)

Pretty smart move on Obama's part. Blatantly break the law and if anyone says anything just say they must hate America and the military because he broke the law for a good reason.

He's a good Republican.

Latrinsorm

05-31-2014, 09:10 PM

I guess it's a crime to support our troops now? I guess patriotism is a crime? I guess next you'll want to put him in prison for wearing a flag pin on his lapel?

I'm sorry.

I thought this was America.

subzero

05-31-2014, 10:49 PM

Back

06-01-2014, 02:29 AM

Thanks for posting this. I can't think of two bigger assholes in government right now. They have achieved that status.

Back

06-01-2014, 02:37 AM

Pretty smart move on Obama's part. Blatantly break the law and if anyone says anything just say they must hate America and the military because he broke the law for a good reason.

What is your exact issue with what he did?

Love to hear it.

Dwaar

06-01-2014, 02:39 AM

Now that Obama has set a precedent that we will trade your people for ours, get ready for a nice increase in kidnappings.

I am happy that we rescued one of ours, I just wish he wasn't the piece of crap that we did this for. He hates America, deserted his post, went looking for the Taliban, and got fellow American Soldiers killed in the search for him.

I truly feel for his family and what they went through, but what Obama did from a national security and international policy standpoint just put an even larger target on US citizens around the world. Not smart at all.

Back

06-01-2014, 02:54 AM

waywardgs

06-01-2014, 03:04 AM

So I guess we're officially negotiating with terrorists now?

(we have been all along in one way or another of course, but the tough talk sells better.)

Jace Solo

06-01-2014, 03:04 AM

Back is entirely missing the point. Aren't you a lawyer or something?

Dwaar

06-01-2014, 03:07 AM

Like US people aren't already targets?

What would you rather happen?

I said "an even larger target", which most people would be able to infer that we already have one on us. Which we do.

Not negotiate in this fashion with our enemies. As I said, Obama has now set a precedent. Take one of ours, we'll give you 5 of yours. Historically (not counting the horrible idea of Iran-Contra, stupid idea as well), the US policy is no negotiating with terrorists. That policy, regardless of what you think, has limited the number of politically motivated kidnappings against us. They know we just wouldn't give them what they wanted.

Rescues sometime go wrong, but our enemies know we would do all we can to get our people back, and kill them in the process. If we lost our people, or they were killed prior to their release or rescue, they knew we would hunt them down and kill them. Might take us awhile, but the retribution would eventually come.

Secondly, as I said, I feel for the family members and what they suffered through. But sadly, by their sons own admission, he hates America. By all accounts and the subsequent investigation, he willingly left his post and actively sought out the Taliban in the region. The search that occurred to find him, resulted in numerous casualties of other American Soldiers (whose families now have to live with that loss).

Bringing one our own home is a great thing, and I am glad that we never stop trying to find our people. It is unfortunate that he was the person that such an event had to occur with.

Aluvius

06-01-2014, 03:26 AM

The precedent for trading prisoners was set by the Sumerians I think around 4700 years ago. Although I'm sure there was a disgruntled city-state governor spreading rumors about the king being soft on Elamites or that he was a secret Babylonian with no valid pass-tablet.

Also, how do you increase the incentive for kidnapping anywhere over absolute certitude? Did only 6 out of 10 Taliban want to kidnap Americans before this but now its more like 8 of out 10? That's a trick question it was 10 out of 10 then and now (except for Abdullah, sometimes I think he's just in it for the women). :)

The law was broken but the other assertions are just unreasonable. And if this law prevents the US trading prisoners for captured service personnel then it needs to be changed. No one I know would have voted for the Do Not Trade Terrorists for Captured Americans Law of 2010. We traded captured personnel with the frigging Soviets and their existential threat toward the US was about 1,000,000 times the level of the sum total of all terrorist organizations combined.

Thondalar

06-01-2014, 03:39 AM

Thondalar

06-01-2014, 03:42 AM

Dwaar

06-01-2014, 03:46 AM

There is a difference between prisoner exchanges with Nation States and negotiating with terrorists. The end of the Civil War, Revolutionary War, WW1, WW2, Korea, Vietnam, etc. were between Nation State actors, and prisoner exchanges would occur between the nations, as the individuals exchanged operated at the direction of their Government. This deal was done with a labeled terrorist organization, where no true agreement can be relied upon once the transaction is completed.

Your point about the Sumerians has no basis on the US position dealing with terrorists.

If you can't understand how terrorist organizations now are incentivized to kidnap US personnel following this deal, then you really don't get it. Additionally, the point you were trying to make is not fully thought out. You're right, 10 out of 10 did want to kidnap us. None of them would or have. Now, they know they can and there is a possibility to get what they want, whereas before they knew they wouldn't. Lastly, in this situation, they did not kidnap him.... he went looking for them.

A deal like the one that occurred, has probably been in negotiations for well over a month. I'm not sure I like the law as it currently stands myself, but it is the law. If we don't like it, then lets change it. But a deal, especially involving a third party designated to take control of the 5 terrorists, did not happen in a day or two. The Administration knew what was occurring and failed to follow the law on the books. If we are a Nation of laws, then either change the law legally, or adhere to it.

Dwaar

06-01-2014, 03:56 AM

Usually I am not a conspiracy theorist, but considering the timing of this, a point could be made if one wished to go that route:

Talks and negotiations with the Taliban for Berghdal's release have been going on for years. One of the demands was the return of their people for him. If this deal was the right thing to do, solely to get one of our Soldiers back, then it could have been done a long time ago.

With the numerous issues Obama is dealing with, and specifically the VA scandal (which he ran on it both in 2008 and 2012, stating he knew about the problem, appointed the person he wanted to fix it, and it subsequently wasn't fixed over 6 years, DOES make him ultimately responsible for what has occurred) -- it seems odd that this deal suddenly occurred, which to most people will appear to be amazing, but I think might not fully understand the ramifications it will have.

But he does get some good press at a time he really needs it, with the crowd he thought he really needed it with.

Elantari

06-01-2014, 04:25 AM

If you can't understand how terrorist organizations now are incentivized to kidnap US personnel following this deal, then you really don't get it.

How do little pussies like you get any sleep at night?

Dwaar

06-01-2014, 04:29 AM

How do little pussies like you get any sleep at night?

? Slight explanation might be needed, as you make no sense.

And I seem to sleep pretty well after I climb off your sister. ;)

Elantari

06-01-2014, 04:35 AM

Usually I am not a conspiracy theorist, but I'm actually a pussy conspiracy theorist. Thinking about the threat terrorists pose makes me piss my panties.

Makes sense. Gotcha.

Dwaar

06-01-2014, 04:38 AM

Makes sense. Gotcha.

You make me laugh little troll. You seem like a real tough guy, or maybe you're really scared and you are projecting. Now shoo fly.

Elantari

06-01-2014, 04:50 AM

You make me laugh little troll. You seem like a real tough guy, or maybe you're really scared and you are projecting. Now shoo fly.

How are those Depends Adult Diapers treating you? How many stars would you rate them?

Dwaar

06-01-2014, 04:56 AM

How are those Depends Adult Diapers treating you? How many stars would you rate them?

/yawn

Really? That's the best you can come up with? I enjoy little trolls like you, you give me a good laugh. Internet tough guys. Now go wash those dirty pajamas and tell your mom she doesn't need to make your cereal in the morning anymore for you. You're a big boy now and can do it yourself.

Elantari

06-01-2014, 05:02 AM

Now go wash those dirty pajamas and tell your mom she doesn't need to make your cereal in the morning anymore for you. You're a big boy now and can do it yourself.

That's a good one. Can I get your permission to use this epic insult in the future?

Dwaar

06-01-2014, 05:08 AM

That's a good one. Can I get your permission to use this epic insult in the future?

Be sure to ask your mommy before you do, but fine with me little boy. Now, do you like lollipops?

Elantari

06-01-2014, 05:18 AM

Be sure to ask your mommy before you do, but fine with me little boy. Now, do you like lollipops?

You're very good at this. Such forum skills. Will you teach me?

Dwaar

06-01-2014, 05:32 AM

You're very good at this. Such forum skills. Will you teach me?

Sure. Takes only one hand, leaving the other one free to do whatever you want with it.

Elantari

06-01-2014, 05:35 AM

Sure. Takes only one hand, leaving the other one free to do whatever you want with it.

Ok, thanks! I'll use the free hand to slap the stupid out of you.

waywardgs

06-01-2014, 08:57 AM

http://img2.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20130824142713/ben10fanfiction/images/f/f0/Abandon_Thread.gif

Ker_Thwap

06-01-2014, 09:00 AM

I'll be fine with this when I hear about the 5 new drone strikes this week that home in on the implanted chips.

Kembal

06-01-2014, 12:28 PM

I'll be fine with this when I hear about the 5 new drone strikes this week that home in on the implanted chips.

This. Although it'll be a year...they're stuck in Qatar until then. But I would not be surprised that the US did something to make sure they don't lose track of these guys....all 5 are senior Taliban, and hell, one should be up for war crimes. (committed genocide back in 2001)

I'm not mad that they did a prisoner exchange. I am irritated that it was those 5 prisoners though.

Thondalar

06-01-2014, 01:38 PM

But I would not be surprised that the US did something to make sure they don't lose track of these guys...

Imo that would be the only way this situation redeems itself.

I'm not mad that they did a prisoner exchange. I am irritated that it was those 5 prisoners though.

I'm not mad they did a prisoner exchange. I'm mad they did it with a terrorist organization, and basically gave them 5 cows for a goat. In Afghanistan that's the sort of trade you only make to a more powerful family.

Riltus

06-01-2014, 02:38 PM

Imo that would be the only way this situation redeems itself.

I'm not mad they did a prisoner exchange. I'm mad they did it with a terrorist organization, and basically gave them 5 cows for a goat. In Afghanistan that's the sort of trade you only make to a more powerful family.

So, you don't think one of our servicemen is worth 5 Taliban? Nice. You'd just leave our POWs hanging because "WE DON'T NEGOTIATE WITH TERRORISTS". How much skin do you have in the game?

Mark

Latrinsorm

06-01-2014, 02:55 PM

Don't lie: You've got one of those yellow ribbon-stickers on your ride, don't you?Godless liberal communists like you might have just one. I drew a Peano curve on MC Escher's face and made him cover 200% of my car's surface area with yellow ribbons. No overlaps. That's how I roll.

Wrathbringer

06-01-2014, 03:04 PM

Riltus

06-01-2014, 03:31 PM

Cry me a river. They knew the risks when they signed their life away. If we want them out, we should bust them out, not negotiate.

What's stopping you?

I heard they had to recall all off-duty capitol police to control the crowd of patriotic volunteers who offered to exchange themselves for US POWs. Ted Cruz, as he was being dragged out, was reported to have been screaming, "TAKE ME INSTEAD, TAKE ME INSTEAD".

Mark

Warriorbird

06-01-2014, 03:33 PM

Dwaar

06-01-2014, 03:51 PM

So, you don't think one of our servicemen is worth 5 Taliban? Nice. You'd just leave our POWs hanging because "WE DON'T NEGOTIATE WITH TERRORISTS". How much skin do you have in the game?

Mark

A better question might be, how much skin do you have in the game? Making assumptions about peoples experiences or investment in such activities is a cop out.

Read back a bit, and if you don't agree that there is a difference between A. prisoner exchanges between nation states and B. trades with terrorist organizations, then it might be a limited conversation. If you do agree there is a difference, then the merits of what occurred might lead to a good conversation.

Aluvius

06-01-2014, 04:58 PM

Nations make prisoner trades with non state actors frequently, Israel traded like 1000 prisoners for 1 soldier a few years ago. Israel. They've done it more than once. We've done it before under several different presidents. European nations do it. In other words, any country where you might actually want to reside has decided that trading prisoners with terrorist organizations is worth it.

We are no worse off tactically or strategically than we were before the deal. Actually we're probably better off since it won't be too much longer till we'll be dealing with the Taliban again as the government of Afghanistan (such as it is), acts like this do actually gain us better relations with them. There's a well known picture of a Taliban delegation in the Oval Office in early 2001 meeting with Bush over oil pipeline negotiations. That isn't criticism or snark, its political reality .. he SHOULD have been meeting with them then, just as we should be holding negotiations with them now when we're at war. We're not staying there and they have the backing of regional allies plus control over at least half of the country, at best we'll go back to a civil war status quo with a Northern Alliance type holding the other half.

Someone called folks a pussy earlier, that's not how I roll but I am not unaware of the irony of how the conservative side of the country has turned into quasi-utopianists with a passive aggressive hatred toward our armed forces. What happened to geo-political realism combined with an absorption of the lessons learned from Vietnam? I keep hoping to see another George H. Bush come back to the Republican party so we can let the Democrats get back to coming up with wacky leftist social engineering ideas instead of being forced to be the grown ups. Its like Bizarro World for someone raised during the latter part of the Cold War. Fuck, I'd take Nixon at this point. :)

Dwaar

06-01-2014, 06:14 PM

Aluvius,
Excellent points all around. Your references to past dealings due shed some light on it, and allow for some definite discussions on the validity of those actions. I still fall on the side of adhering to our stance of not dealing with terrorists in this way, as I think it will only embolden them to conduct more actions against US citizens around the world now.

Tactically and strategically, I mostly agree. Things over the years could have been handled differently (and I think we should have put a lot more pressure on Saudi after the attacks), but the current situation will be what it will be. It doesn't help that Karzai was the one propped up initially (who is conveniently leaving "his country" now that we are pulling out). I'm jaded and the idea that relations with the Taliban, or whatever power structure develops, will be honored on their end can not be trusted. Americans tend to have a short term memory, but older societies, and especially those in that region of the world, just see it as a slight reset period until the next attack occurs. We've been forming and fighting for our country for a few hundred years, that region of the world has been at this for thousands.

The pussy comment from earlier, just seemed like an internet troll (as I am learning about seems to be an issue on these forums).

As for geo-political realism, this is the transition period where a decision will have to be made very soon. Either we live by and continue to try to promote the ideals of freedom and right for those all over the world (which requires our involvement - economically, militarily, and humanitarian) or we continue to pull back and limit our involvement around the world. That void will be filled by someone else, and it is occurring now, with the policies currently being implemented by the administration.

I lean towards the ideal of staying involved myself.

Wrathbringer

06-01-2014, 06:27 PM

What's stopping you?

I heard they had to recall all off-duty capitol police to control the crowd of patriotic volunteers who offered to exchange themselves for US POWs. Ted Cruz, as he was being dragged out, was reported to have been screaming, "TAKE ME INSTEAD, TAKE ME INSTEAD".

Mark

First off, what? Secondly, contrary to popular belief, I do not call the shots on our special forces ops, so that's stopping me, I guess... Thirdly, what?

Jarvan

06-01-2014, 06:36 PM

Thanks for posting this. I can't think of two bigger assholes in government right now. They have achieved that status.

Who, Obama and Reid?

Jarvan

06-01-2014, 06:38 PM

BTW.. WTF ever happened with.. "We do not negotiate with Terrorists".

Wrathbringer

06-01-2014, 06:41 PM

BTW.. WTF ever happened with.. "We do not negotiate with Terrorists".

Apparently they label it "trading" and do it anyway.

Thondalar

06-01-2014, 07:38 PM

So, you don't think one of our servicemen is worth 5 Taliban? Nice.

No, quite frankly, I don't. And if you do, you need to check your emotions at the door and use some logic.

You'd just leave our POWs hanging because "WE DON'T NEGOTIATE WITH TERRORISTS".

You act like that's the only option.

How much skin do you have in the game?

Exactly what game is that?

Thondalar

06-01-2014, 07:41 PM

He doesn't even pay taxes.

Er...I've paid taxes for 18 years now, ever since getting my first job at 16. If you want to get technical, I've paid taxes since the first time I bought something all on my own with my chore money...whatever that was. That was quite a bit longer ago.

subzero

06-01-2014, 08:21 PM

BTW.. WTF ever happened with.. "We do not negotiate with Terrorists".

Same thing that happened with, "We won't let the terrahrists win".

Jeril

06-01-2014, 08:37 PM

Er...I've paid taxes for 18 years now, ever since getting my first job at 16. If you want to get technical, I've paid taxes since the first time I bought something all on my own with my chore money...whatever that was. That was quite a bit longer ago.

He didn't mean you Thond, he meant Wrathbringer.

Thondalar

06-01-2014, 08:54 PM

He didn't mean you Thond, he meant Wrathbringer.

Oh, well he quoted someone else's response to me, so figured he was talking about me.

Kembal

06-01-2014, 08:59 PM

BTW.. WTF ever happened with.. "We do not negotiate with Terrorists".

Eh, we always have. See Iran-Contra.

Delcry

06-01-2014, 09:02 PM

Warriorbird

06-01-2014, 11:08 PM

Oh, well he quoted someone else's response to me, so figured he was talking about me.

Error on my part. I should've quoted further down. I could even see you paying under the Capone rule during that one time period.

Jarvan

06-01-2014, 11:38 PM

American's aren't exceptional, if that is what you are implying.

I'm just happy 6 people are now free to do whatever they want to do.

Lets just hope that "whatever they want" is not killing more Americans. Tho I am sure there are some people here that will say it's our fault anyway.

waywardgs

06-02-2014, 12:50 AM

Lets just hope that "whatever they want" is not killing more Americans. Tho I am sure there are some people here that will say it's our fault anyway.

I'll bet the guy who just trolled you will say that... to troll you some more.

Back

06-02-2014, 01:40 AM

This thread makes me ashamed to say I am an American.

Saying that our prisoner was a traitor, and that non-violent resolutions to war are bad things, is counter to fucking logical thought.

Methais

06-02-2014, 02:49 AM

This thread makes me ashamed to say I am an American.

Saying that our prisoner was a traitor, and that non-violent resolutions to war are bad things, is counter to fucking logical thought.

You should be ashamed to be an American over your outrage of taking the natives' land yet refusing to leave the country to do your part to make it up to them.

AnticorRifling

06-02-2014, 08:28 AM

Atlanteax

06-02-2014, 08:30 AM

Apparently the US 'soldier' that the 'trade' was committed for ... was a deserter.

Nice Obama, very nicely done.

Atlanteax

06-02-2014, 08:31 AM

Warriorbird

06-02-2014, 08:36 AM

This thread makes me ashamed to say I am an American.

Saying that our prisoner was a traitor, and that non-violent resolutions to war are bad things, is counter to fucking logical thought.

Maybe it makes me an unusual Democrat, but I'm always a fan of America. Sometimes we do embarassing things, sometimes terrible things, but I love my country no matter what.

Now people IN my country? I can not love them quite easily.

Parkbandit

06-02-2014, 09:30 AM

Parkbandit

06-02-2014, 09:32 AM

Maybe it makes me an unusual Democrat, but I'm always a fan of America. Sometimes we do embarassing things, sometimes terrible things, but I love my country no matter what.

Now people IN my country? I can not love them quite easily.

You're too "old school" democrat. If you don't have an enormous amount of self hate, you might not be their target audience.

Back

06-02-2014, 10:35 AM

I said this thread. I think America is great. Like WB said its some of the people that are embarrassing.

Atlanteax

06-02-2014, 10:41 AM

I said this thread. I think America is great. Like WB said it's some of the people that are embarrassing.

Like yourself?

Laviticas

06-02-2014, 10:51 AM

I said this thread. I think America is great. Like WB said its some of the people that are embarrassing.

We are not Europe, we do not want to be Europe. Some of us still take pride that we are unique, I'll take 10 rednecks as neighbors over any single Brit, frenchy or limp wristed Coaster.

Back

06-02-2014, 10:53 AM

Like yourself?

Look at what I am talking about. There was a prisoner exchange. A prisoner exchange is a non-violent resolution to a war time problem. The return of an American service person without any exchange of bullets. So, this happens, and because people have political axes to grind they make astoundingly absurd accusations. He was a deserter. He got other soldiers killed. We shouldn't negotiate with terrorists. People are trying to cast this achievement in as horrible a light as they can for no other reason than politics. It's shameful.

JackWhisper

06-02-2014, 10:54 AM

INB4 inbreeding joke.

YAY REDNECKS!

Atlanteax

06-02-2014, 11:18 AM

Look at what I am talking about. There was a prisoner exchange. A prisoner exchange is a non-violent resolution to a war time problem. The return of an American service person without any exchange of bullets. So, this happens, and because people have political axes to grind they make astoundingly absurd accusations. He was a deserter. He got other soldiers killed. We shouldn't negotiate with terrorists. People are trying to cast this achievement in as horrible a light as they can for no other reason than politics. It's shameful.

What makes you think that these are absurd accusations?
Did you just summarily disregard the correlation of increased US causalities after the desertion?

In the meantime, do you think it should be acceptable in the future, for US soldiers to desert to the enemy side, and then be exchanged for POWs? While other US soldiers continue fighting/dying?

Back

06-02-2014, 11:24 AM

What makes you think that these are absurd accusations?
Did you just summarily disregard the correlation of increased US causalities after the desertion?

In the meantime, do you think it should be acceptable in the future, for US soldiers to desert to the enemy side, and then be exchanged for POWs? While other US soldiers continue fighting/dying?

I admit I haven't read up on everything about this but one conclusion I can come to as a rational human being is that if that soldier did desert to the side of the enemy we sure as fuck wouldn't exchange top enemies for them. We'd call in a drone strike.

Taernath

06-02-2014, 11:33 AM

Unless there's some piece of evidence the government has been keeping quiet for the last 5 years, everything points to a desertion. Even the Taliban was more open about the circumstances of his capture than the government.

Back

06-02-2014, 11:34 AM

AnticorRifling

06-02-2014, 11:40 AM

This guy, an American soldier, was sent to Afghanistan to fight in a war, and ended up being held for 5 years by the fucking Taliban. We get him back and people here want to cast him in a bad light? Fuck you guys.

We cast him in a bad light? He is a deserter... To you that would be like one of your waiters walking out during a busy shift or something I'm not really sure how to make this relate to you.

Taernath

06-02-2014, 11:42 AM

This guy, an American soldier, was sent to Afghanistan to fight in a war, and ended up being held for 5 years by the fucking Taliban. We get him back and people here want to cast him in a bad light? Fuck you guys.

He was caught because of his own stupidity and put a lot of people at risk, not just himself. People died looking for him. People may -still- die because of the guys we traded for him. The entire situation is on his head, he is no hero.

For future reference, in the military being a deserter is just about as low as you can go.

AnticorRifling

06-02-2014, 11:46 AM

He was caught because of his own stupidity and put a lot of people at risk, not just himself. People died looking for him. People may -still- die because of the guys we traded for him. The entire situation is on his head, he is no hero.

For future reference, in the military being a deserter is just about as low as you can go.

He won't understand. Remember you're trying to explain this, even though it's simple, to someone that in less than half a day said "I'm ashamed to be an America" no wait I mean "I think America is great".

Back

06-02-2014, 12:15 PM

We cast him in a bad light? He is a deserter... To you that would be like one of your waiters walking out during a busy shift or something I'm not really sure how to make this relate to you.

Atlanteaux is suggesting he sided with them. That would be like a server walking out and then sitting down to eat and complain about the service. Wait..

But, your point is not falling on deaf ears. Reports are varied. There is nothing conclusive that I have seen so far. Regardless, the notion that this administration naively traded 5 top Al-Qaeda brass for a traitor is pretty silly. Someone in this thread suggested the 5 guys we released were probably implanted with RFIDs so we could track them, follow their movements, and learn more about them to eventually drone strike them. That makes the most sense to me.

But damn, the dude, deserter or not, was a POW of the Taliban for 5 years. If there is conclusive evidence he deserted then let him get tried and punished accordingly.

Tgo01

06-02-2014, 12:18 PM

This guy, an American soldier, was sent to Afghanistan to fight in a war, and ended up being held for 5 years by the fucking Taliban. We get him back and people here want to cast him in a bad light? Fuck you guys.

Does being held prisoner automatically make one a hero or something? Like, if this guy had butchered an entire innocent family but was caught by the Taliban afterwards and held prisoner would he still be a hero? I'm just curious what he did for you to cast him in a "good" light?

Don't get me wrong, deserter or not I don't think we should have just left him there. But you're getting mad at people for talking about the facts...that makes no sense. What have facts ever done to you? :(

Tgo01

06-02-2014, 12:20 PM

But, your point is not falling on deaf ears. Reports are varied. There is nothing conclusive that I have seen so far. Regardless, the notion that this administration naively traded 5 top Al-Qaeda brass for a traitor is pretty silly. Someone in this thread suggested the 5 guys we released were probably implanted with RFIDs so we could track them, follow their movements, and learn more about them to eventually drone strike them. That makes the most sense to me.

It makes no sense to you that we traded 5 prisoners for a traitor but it makes sense to you that we implanted RFIDs into these people so we could track them?

A) RFIDs have a range of like 20 yards.
B) This isn't some a sci fi movie.
C) Pretty sure the person who first suggested that was joking.
D) You're taking a joke more seriously than facts.
E) You make me a sad panda today.
F) On the bright side I mowed my yard again today and it's looking great now that I'm mowing higher and have a newish blade on the mower!

Atlanteax

06-02-2014, 12:25 PM

But damn, the dude, deserter or not, was a POW of the Taliban for 5 years. If there is conclusive evidence he deserted then let him get tried and punished accordingly.

Backlogic = all is forgiven if you were a 'POW' of the Taliban for 5 years, even if you murdered multiple people.

Parkbandit

06-02-2014, 12:26 PM

This thread makes me ashamed to say I am an American.

I think America is great.

Backwolff!

Backwolff!

Backwolff!

Atlanteax

06-02-2014, 12:27 PM

Don't get me wrong, deserter or not I don't think we should have just left him there. But you're getting mad at people for talking about the facts...that makes no sense. What have facts ever done to you? :(

As a deserter, why not just leave him there, vs the cost in releasing 5 detainees?

Back

06-02-2014, 12:28 PM

Backlogic = all is forgiven if you were a 'POW' of the Taliban for 5 years, even if you murdered multiple people.

He murdered multiple people?

Tgo01

06-02-2014, 12:29 PM

As a deserter, why not just leave him there, vs the cost in releasing 5 detainees?

I'm not necessarily saying the trade was the ideal way to go, I'm just saying I don't think we should purposefully leave an American soldier behind because he's accused of being a deserter.

He should try to be rescued and a court can determine his crimes.

I just think it would set a bad precedent if we took the policy of leaving troops behind for any reason.

Johnny Five

06-02-2014, 12:36 PM

Reading Back's posts makes me feel like this.

http://www.dcclothesline.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/einstein-laughing.jpg

Dendum

06-02-2014, 12:42 PM

Does being held prisoner automatically make one a hero or something? Like, if this guy had butchered an entire innocent family but was caught by the Taliban afterwards and held prisoner would he still be a hero? I'm just curious what he did for you to cast him in a "good" light?

Don't get me wrong, deserter or not I don't think we should have just left him there. But you're getting mad at people for talking about the facts...that makes no sense. What have facts ever done to you? :(

I think you are throwing around the word facts pretty loosely though, there are a lot of assertions and they seem to contradict each other as to what happened when this private got kidnapped. That he was angry with the war and his country is a given but I knew a lot of people who said a lot of shit about the war and still did their job so I am not willing to throw him under the bus for that letter he wrote home. We use to call the military the biggest bull shit machine known to man, but we did our jobs. Maybe he was a deserter, more probable he did something stupid and got captured.

Some of the arguments being brought up, like we don't negotiate with terrorist, is based more on a hollywood version of our country than any actual historical look at our history of negotiating with terrorist. Though I would think this kind of behind the scenes deal would have, in the past, not been so publicized by either side...everything from Washington seems so political these days it is hard to see if there is any actual humanity in the decision making process.

Taernath

06-02-2014, 01:00 PM

Maybe he was a deserter, more probable he did something stupid and got captured.

The kid indicated he wanted to 'walk away', and every piece of information released thus far from multiple sources has supported this conclusion. If that's not desertion I don't know what is.

Dendum

06-02-2014, 01:04 PM

The kid indicated he wanted to 'walk away', and every piece of information released thus far from multiple sources has supported this conclusion. If that's not desertion I don't know what is.

what piece of information?

Taernath

06-02-2014, 01:12 PM

what piece of information?

Emails, accounts from fellow soldiers, statements from the Taliban.

What information do you have that this wasn't a desertion?

AnticorRifling

06-02-2014, 01:12 PM

what piece of information?

Ahh the lazy approach.

Jarvan

06-02-2014, 01:35 PM

I'm not necessarily saying the trade was the ideal way to go, I'm just saying I don't think we should purposefully leave an American soldier behind because he's accused of being a deserter.

He should try to be rescued and a court can determine his crimes.

I just think it would set a bad precedent if we took the policy of leaving troops behind for any reason.

Didn't you hear, Obama doesn't need a court to convict people of their crimes anymore. He just orders a Drone strike.

Methais

06-02-2014, 01:44 PM

I bet he bombs something over here eventually.

Let's see what his dad has to say about the situation...

http://www.jewsnews.co.il/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/61.png

Back

06-02-2014, 02:05 PM

Well the internet is blowing up with all kinds of crazy accusations about this guy and his family. There is a "Bowe Bergdahl is NOT hero!" Facebook page.

Dendum

06-02-2014, 02:09 PM

Ahh the lazy approach.

Yea because knowing which piece of information he is talking about is the lazy approach or maybe it is the lazy approach to just sit here and talk shit and not actually respond. If I do not know what he is talking about exactly I have to respond to all of it.

The Taliban information is all kinds of gibberish, we have a message saying they captured him taking a shit...at his post of all places..., one saying he was drunk, another saying he walked away
by all account his unit was all kinds of messed up to begin with with frequent leadership changes and generally bad moral and poor decision making in the field however in this video I just see some people trying to do a shitty job and dealing with

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=43v-1sYNTQg

I am tired of the military being held up as some kind of glorious example of humanity, people in the military say stupid things and most people on deployment say something negative about
a) The deployment
b) the military in general
c) your mother

It looks like this guy was doing stupid shit, it is obvious this guy got captured. It is probably his stupid shit got him captured. What I do not understand is why there is this massive cloud of confusion over his disappearance so that we have to get our most reliable peace of information from Corporal smuck from the other side of the base.

AnticorRifling

06-02-2014, 02:13 PM

How dare you shorten Corporal Smuckatelli's name! Also why was that shit show always getting promoted faster than the rest of us?!

Dendum

06-02-2014, 02:17 PM

How dare you shorten Corporal Smuckatelli's name! Also why was that shit show always getting promoted faster than the rest of us?!

I think we should reduce the sergeants rank back to PFC....
...why was he promoted anyway?

I know it doesn't matter to a lot of people, but he was a PFC when he did whatever he did and got captured and I think promotions in absentia should be reserved for those who died in combat.

AnticorRifling

06-02-2014, 02:20 PM

Does not having to do a field day, junk on the bunk, duty, any dog and pony shows, etc. even factor into his time as a deserter/pow?

Jarvan

06-02-2014, 02:20 PM

Well the internet is blowing up with all kinds of crazy accusations about this guy and his family. There is a "Bowe Bergdahl is NOT hero!" Facebook page.

Wait.. getting captured by the enemy makes you a HERO?

So is John McCain a hero to you then?

Are all the Gitmo people Hero's to you?

He deserted his post and got captured. Maybe he was looking for the Taliban, maybe he wasn't.

It's not like he got captured while trying to infiltrate an enemy strong hold and assassinate Osama Bin Laden.

Hero is a strong word and should not be used lightly.

Dendum

06-02-2014, 02:22 PM

Does not having to do a field day, junk on the bunk, duty, any dog and pony shows, etc. even factor into his time as a deserter/pow?

Does he get three years back pay at E5 is the question he should be asking....with deployment and danger pay and of course tax free.

Latrinsorm

06-02-2014, 02:23 PM

It's not like he got captured while trying to infiltrate an enemy strong hold and assassinate Osama Bin Laden.

Hero is a strong word and should not be used lightly.And that's why Obama is a hero. He didn't even get captured. Swag.

Taernath

06-02-2014, 02:24 PM

It looks like this guy was doing stupid shit, it is obvious this guy got captured.

You keep saying he was doing "stupid shit" but won't call him a deserter. What "stupid shit", exactly, do you think he was doing?

Back

06-02-2014, 02:37 PM

Wait.. getting captured by the enemy makes you a HERO?

So is John McCain a hero to you then?

Are all the Gitmo people Hero's to you?

He deserted his post and got captured. Maybe he was looking for the Taliban, maybe he wasn't.

It's not like he got captured while trying to infiltrate an enemy strong hold and assassinate Osama Bin Laden.

Hero is a strong word and should not be used lightly.

I didn't call him a hero. That's really up to the military. Interesting thing about that Facebook page is there is a guy who posted that he knew the 6 soldiers that were killed and has told people it had nothing to do with any kind of search mission. That their orders were "keep an eye open" for the missing guy but they were all killed in their regular operations.

Methais

06-02-2014, 02:49 PM

Where does a deserter in Afghanistan even think he's going to go?

Warriorbird

06-02-2014, 02:57 PM

Wait.. getting captured by the enemy makes you a HERO?

So is John McCain a hero to you then?

Yes, though not for those reasons.

Back

06-02-2014, 02:57 PM

Where does a deserter in Afghanistan even think he's going to go?

Read somewhere that someone said he was thinking about China.

I think people are not quite making the distinction between "deserting" and being "captured".

Taernath

06-02-2014, 02:59 PM

Read somewhere that someone said he was thinking about China.

I think people are not quite making the distinction between "deserting" and being "captured".

There is no distinction in the military. If you leave your assigned post without approval, particularly during a wartime situation, that's deserting. People used to be executed for this.

AnticorRifling

06-02-2014, 03:01 PM

Read somewhere that someone said he was thinking about China.

I think people are not quite making the distinction between "deserting" and being "captured".

Being captured does not erase the desertion.

Back

06-02-2014, 03:02 PM

If you leave your assigned area without approval, that's deserting. There is no distinction in the military.

I understand that. He may have willingly walked but he wasn't willingly captured.

Back

06-02-2014, 03:03 PM

Being captured does not erase the desertion.

I'm not suggesting that.

Parkbandit

06-02-2014, 03:04 PM

Where does a deserter in Afghanistan even think he's going to go?

Isn't anyone who walks around in Afghanistan a deserter?

Parkbandit

06-02-2014, 03:05 PM

I understand that. He may have willingly walked but he wasn't willingly captured.

Captain Obvious to the Rescue!

Taernath

06-02-2014, 03:05 PM

I understand that. He may have willingly walked but he wasn't willingly captured.

Willingly walking away is the desertion part, dude.

Parkbandit

06-02-2014, 03:07 PM

Willingly walking away is the desertion part, dude.

BUT HE WASN'T WILLINGLY CAPTURED!

Back

06-02-2014, 03:21 PM

Good article from the BBC speculating on where things go from here.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-27672919

Back

06-02-2014, 03:28 PM

Willingly walking away is the desertion part, dude.

I understand that. His desertion is still speculation though. The military has investigated and even they aren't conclusive about if it was desertion or not. But what we do know with certainty is that he was captured.

Dendum

06-02-2014, 03:33 PM

You keep saying he was doing "stupid shit" but won't call him a deserter. What "stupid shit", exactly, do you think he was doing?

Well
" On one of the nights – we weren’t really supposed to – but we walked over to the Afghan National Army position on the top of the hill. They had their own tent a bit away from us. We ate some lamb with them. He and the others were interested in the Afghans. One of the others was the son of a missionary, and he’d lived in different bits of South America."
Is a quote from the embedded British reporter, so these guys were obviously regularly traveling outside of assigned areas.
and if you read the Rolling Stones article that was written awhile back

"In the early-morning hours of June 30th, according to soldiers in the unit, Bowe approached his team leader not long after he got off guard duty and asked his superior a simple question: If I were to leave the base, would it cause problems if I took my sensitive equipment?

Yes, his team leader responded – if you took your rifle and night-vision goggles, that would cause problems."

Why the hell didn't the team leader respond with something more along the lines of "Leaving the base at all would cause problems."? Isn't it a little odd that the first response would be one that labeled conditions of outside area travel and not one that firmly boot stomped the idea at all?

There is another report saying he walked off in the company of three afghans...how? Is this not unusual enough to stop an unarmed military member and question him as he walks off with three Afghans? Why didn't this immediately raise the red flag? Was it common enough that no one thought twice about it until he didn't return?

I don't know...I don't know if the entire conversation even took place, I don't know the lay out of the "base" or if these people frequently traveled to outside areas like the reporter claims or if that was a one off in an isolated area. The entire situation seems more complicated than some on the spin campaign would like to paint it. I had a guy walk off and go AWOL in Australia...just left for three weeks and missed the muster to leave, he came back turned himself in and served his remainder as an E1 somewhere else, I don't even know what that guy was thinking and I knew him. Did this guy walk out of his base with no change of clothes, no food just a camera in an attempt to go to pakistan?

Taernath

06-02-2014, 03:36 PM

I understand that. His desertion is still speculation though. The military has investigated and even they aren't conclusive about if it was desertion or not. But what we do know with certainty is that he was captured.

If you have either information or an alternate theory as to how this dude wound up off base without deserting I would love to hear it.

Latrinsorm

06-02-2014, 03:49 PM

If you have either information or an alternate theory as to how this dude wound up off base without deserting I would love to hear it.Soldiers go on base, soldiers go off base. You can't explain that.

cwolff

06-02-2014, 03:51 PM

It will be interesting to see if they court-martial him. Newsies are already reporting anonymous quotes from past or present Sr. service people that 5 years in captivity is enough. One thing I didn't realize before is that they've been negotiating for his release for 3 or 4 years.

Tgo01

06-02-2014, 03:52 PM

One thing I didn't realize before is that they've been negotiating for his release for 3 or 4 years.

Yet it was apparently so urgent that Obama couldn't be bothered to follow the law and provide Congress with 30 days notice. Hmm.

Back

06-02-2014, 03:56 PM

There is another FB page called Bring Bowe Bergdahl Home. As far as I can tell it is probably a page his family made with links to news stories. Of course the comments are full of nutjobs threatening to kill him.

cwolff

06-02-2014, 03:59 PM

Yet it was apparently so urgent that Obama couldn't be bothered to follow the law and provide Congress with 30 days notice. Hmm.

Bring charges. Maybe you can make a citizen's arrest.

BTW, before you get all black and white about this do keep in mind that 1) Obama's innocent until proven guilty (good luck with proving that) and 2) "When he signed the law last year, Obama issued a signing statement contending that the notification requirement was an unconstitutional infringement on his powers as commander in chief and that he therefore could override it."

Did he break the law? The answer to that is not so simple.

There is another FB page called Bring Bowe Bergdahl Home. As far as I can tell it is probably a page his family made with links to news stories. Of course the comments are full of nutjobs threatening to kill him.

Oh ya, this things going to get ugly. They're saying all kinds of crazy right wing anti islam conspiracy theory stuff. Did you read the one about Berghdals Dad speaking arabic?

Tgo01

06-02-2014, 04:02 PM

Taernath

06-02-2014, 04:03 PM

There is another report saying he walked off in the company of three afghans...how? Is this not unusual enough to stop an unarmed military member and question him as he walks off with three Afghans? Why didn't this immediately raise the red flag? Was it common enough that no one thought twice about it until he didn't return?

In a lot of the smaller places ANA or ABP control the outer security and gate access. It's not hard to get out provided an American in one of the towers didn't see him (some reports claim he left during his guard shift, so maybe he would have been the one up in the tower).

I don't know...I don't know if the entire conversation even took place, I don't know the lay out of the "base" or if these people frequently traveled to outside areas like the reporter claims or if that was a one off in an isolated area. The entire situation seems more complicated than some on the spin campaign would like to paint it. I had a guy walk off and go AWOL in Australia...just left for three weeks and missed the muster to leave, he came back turned himself in and served his remainder as an E1 somewhere else, I don't even know what that guy was thinking and I knew him. Did this guy walk out of his base with no change of clothes, no food just a camera in an attempt to go to pakistan?

One important point of determining desertion is whether or not the soldier plans on returning. You've got his last few emails to his parents, comments made to other soldiers about 'walking off into the mountains', and apparently being found with a map and compass. All these point more to desertion than going to drink chai with his ANA buddies.

cwolff

06-02-2014, 04:04 PM

You think Obama can override a law passed by Congress by simply saying he refuses to recognize it as law?

And I thought the news anchor who thought Michelle could sign laws was bad.

He just did or didn't you notice. If you want to make the charges stick you're going to have to bring him to trial. That's not even enough though. You've got to bring him to trial (or impeachment) and win.

cwolff

06-02-2014, 04:06 PM

In a lot of the smaller places ANA or ABP control the outer security and gate access. It's not hard to get out provided an American in one of the towers didn't see him (some reports claim he left during his guard shift, so maybe he would have been the one up in the tower).

One important point of determining desertion is whether or not the soldier plans on returning. You've got his last few emails to his parents, comments made to other soldiers about 'walking off into the mountains', and apparently being found with a map and compass. All these point more to desertion than going to drink chai with his ANA buddies.

I'm glad he left his rifle behind. It does sound like desertion to me though I can't see them doing much to him. It is going to get ugly though. Once we have some distance from his return the claws are going to come out and this guy will be treated worse then Johnny Walker Lindh.

Dendum

06-02-2014, 04:07 PM

cwolff

06-02-2014, 04:09 PM

did you just selectively quote my post?

I can't even read your posts with that Avatar. Please go back to the head shot.

Tgo01

06-02-2014, 04:10 PM

He just did or didn't you notice.

... I don't even know what to say in response to this. I bet even Latrin isn't going to have your back on this one.

If you want to make the charges stick you're going to have to bring him to trial. That's not even enough though. You've got to bring him to trial (or impeachment) and win.

My goodness. No one is talking about bringing him to trial or pressing charges against him or throwing him in jail. Not everyone jumps on the "OMG WAR CRIMINAL!" bandwagon like you do when it comes to Bush.

This doesn't rise to the level of impeachment or jail time. It's not like Obama just opened the cell doors and let these guys walk out for no reason whatsoever.

It's just mind boggling how someone can claim to be an independent yet say the shit you do over and over again.

You are sitting here telling us Obama can simply ignore Congress and the laws they pass on a whim. Did you fall asleep during civics class or what?

Taernath

06-02-2014, 04:10 PM

did you just selectively quote my post?

Did you just not respond to any of my points at all?

cwolff

06-02-2014, 04:12 PM

... I don't even know what to say in response to this. I bet even Latrin isn't going to have your back on this one.

My goodness. No one is talking about bringing him to trial or pressing charges against him or throwing him in jail. Not everyone jumps on the "OMG WAR CRIMINAL!" bandwagon like you do when it comes to Bush.

This doesn't rise to the level of impeachment or jail time. It's not like Obama just opened the cell doors and let these guys walk out for no reason whatsoever.

It's just mind boggling how someone can claim to be an independent yet say the shit you do over and over again.

You are sitting here telling us Obama can simply ignore Congress and the laws they pass on a whim. Did you fall asleep during civics class or what?

Here again you are overlaying your feelings onto my words. I said nothing about a whim. You really do need to read with more objectivity.

Taernath

06-02-2014, 04:14 PM

I'm glad he left his rifle behind. It does sound like desertion to me though I can't see them doing much to him. It is going to get ugly though. Once we have some distance from his return the claws are going to come out and this guy will be treated worse then Johnny Walker Lindh.

The rifle is relatively unimportant, I think, compared to the NVGs or the other stuff infantry usually carries. Didn't he also have some changes of clothes? In a few videos he had part of the PT uniform on.

cwolff

06-02-2014, 04:20 PM

The rifle is relatively unimportant, I think, compared to the NVGs or the other stuff infantry usually carries. Didn't he also have some changes of clothes? In a few videos he had part of the PT uniform on.

He took his PT gear? That's pretty funny.

Tgo01

06-02-2014, 04:21 PM

Obama issued a signing statement contending that the notification requirement was an unconstitutional infringement on his powers as commander in chief and that he therefore could override it."

Did he break the law? The answer to that is not so simple.

I said nothing about a whim.

Except that's exactly what he did. "I don't feel like this law is constitutional so I'm just going to ignore it."

Since when is it up to the president to decide if laws passed by Congress are constitutional or not?

Wrathbringer

06-02-2014, 04:24 PM

You think Obama can override a law passed by Congress by simply saying he refuses to recognize it as law?.

I do it all the time. Why do you hate imperialism?

cwolff

06-02-2014, 04:25 PM

Except that's exactly what he did. "I don't feel like this law is constitutional so I'm just going to ignore it."

Since when is it up to the president to decide if laws passed by Congress are constitutional or not?

What do you mean since when? By saying this you are assuming that he was not within his power to do what he did. That he did something new and unprecedented that's never happened before between the Executive and Legislative branches of government.

The shades are grey are kicking your ass again. Not everything's so black and white dude.

Atlanteax

06-02-2014, 04:26 PM

Oh ya, this things going to get ugly. They're saying all kinds of crazy right wing anti islam conspiracy theory stuff. Did you read the one about Berghdals Dad speaking arabic?

The dad is also calling for the release of all remaining prisoners from Gitmo...

Back

06-02-2014, 04:28 PM

Oh ya, this things going to get ugly. They're saying all kinds of crazy right wing anti islam conspiracy theory stuff. Did you read the one about Berghdals Dad speaking arabic?

Hehe I don't know why I find crazy comments on FB so fascinating... seriously some people out there make some of our more outspoken knuckleheads look like sophisticated gentlemen. Here is one that made me laugh.

First of all I want to say I love our country! I am so ashamed of our President and his Congress they have made us fools, everyone will bitch, moan and complain (that's all they do) about Obama and his traitors that we elected. When will the American people have enough? Will it be when we are forced to convert to being Muslim? When Americans die by the jihad on American soil by the thousands? Obama has proven he doesn't believe in our laws, turns everything into racism, or blames everything on Bush (could understand if Obama had just took office but it's been what 6 years now?) never does he stand up for his mistakes like a man. He has lied, taken away our freedoms one by one and still no one is standing up and really doing anything but bitching, moaning and complaining. WAKE UP AMERICA! How much more are we willing to take????????????

Atlanteax

06-02-2014, 04:29 PM

The shades are grey are kicking your ass again. Not everything's so black and white dude.

cwolff: "agree with Obama = white; disagree with Obama = black"

Tgo01

06-02-2014, 04:32 PM

What do you mean since when? By saying this you are assuming that he was not within his power to do what he did. That he did something new and unprecedented that's never happened before between the Executive and Legislative branches of government.

The shades are grey are kicking your ass again. Not everything's so black and white dude.

I have to stop engaging with cwolff. I can literally feel myself getting stupider reading his posts now.

The lengths he'll go to to defend Obama is simply staggering. Even Back isn't touching the whole legality issue.

Wrathbringer

06-02-2014, 04:36 PM

Hehe I don't know why I find crazy comments on FB so fascinating... seriously some people out there make some of our more outspoken knuckleheads look like sophisticated gentlemen. Here is one that made me laugh.

Completely agree except for the loving our country part. Pm me who that is so I can send them a friend request.

Tisket

06-02-2014, 04:39 PM

I have to stop engaging with cwolff. I can literally feel myself getting stupider reading his posts now.

The lengths he'll go to to defend Obama is simply staggering. Even Back isn't touching the whole legality issue.

At least you have a penis. That seems to be his only prerequisite for engaging in internet arguments. If you had a vagina you'd have been banished to his ignore list long ago. It's a very peaceful place to be so, since he's an internet misogynist, the answer is clear, you need a sex change operation, Tg.

Tgo01

06-02-2014, 04:42 PM

At least you have a penis. That seems to be his only prerequisite for engaging in internet arguments. If you had a vagina you'd have been banished to his ignore list long ago. It's a very peaceful place to be so, since he's an internet misogynist, the answer is clear, you need a sex change operation, Tg.

cwolff hates women and Tisket is the proof!

cwolff

06-02-2014, 04:45 PM

I have to stop engaging with cwolff. I can literally feel myself getting stupider reading his posts now.

The lengths he'll go to to defend Obama is simply staggering. Even Back isn't touching the whole legality issue.

Oh yes the lengths I'm going to to defend him. Here's what I wrote:

BTW, before you get all black and white about this do keep in mind that 1) Obama's innocent until proven guilty (good luck with proving that) and 2) "When he signed the law last year, Obama issued a signing statement contending that the notification requirement was an unconstitutional infringement on his powers as commander in chief and that he therefore could override it."

Did he break the law? The answer to that is not so simple.

Nothing extreme about that.

You started this thread and titled it Obama Breaks the Law. Get challenged on that and you come back with this lame-o crap:

My goodness. No one is talking about bringing him to trial or pressing charges against him or throwing him in jail. Not everyone jumps on the "OMG WAR CRIMINAL!" bandwagon like you do when it comes to Bush.

This doesn't rise to the level of impeachment or jail time. It's not like Obama just opened the cell doors and let these guys walk out for no reason whatsoever.

It's just mind boggling how someone can claim to be an independent yet say the shit you do over and over again.

You are sitting here telling us Obama can simply ignore Congress and the laws they pass on a whim. Did you fall asleep during civics class or what?

Can you really not see what's going on here. The Obama breaks the law stuff is being put forward by political hacks for purely political motives yet you've chosen to swallow it. You need you stomach pumped.

Tisket

06-02-2014, 04:49 PM

cwolff hates women and Tisket is the proof!

Considering I had like one back and forth with him and wound up on his ignore list, while you and PB have tormented him for months without getting the same treatment, yes, he doesn't like women arguing with him.

Tgo01

06-02-2014, 04:51 PM

Considering I had like one back and forth with him and wound up on his ignore list, while you and PB have tormented him for months without getting the same treatment, yes, he doesn't like women arguing with him.

I agree with and also quoting you so cwolff can see his sexist ways.

cwolff

06-02-2014, 04:56 PM

I agree with and also quoting you so cwolff can see his sexist ways.

PB's on my ignore list. He got it for stalking. Same reason as Tisket even though she still stalks a little bit. See below

Thread: Mississippi Congressman Calls Clarence Thomas "Uncle Tom"
Let's see if we can make you red again. Tisket (can't ignore me here!)

It's Ok though. I'm taking off and will be living in wilderness or on off the grid properties for a while so I won't be on PC much from Thursday on. If I don't say it before I leave I'll say it now, "Smell you all later."

Tisket

06-02-2014, 04:57 PM

That's bullshit. You put me on ignore after one thread altercation. One.

Tisket

06-02-2014, 04:57 PM

So he's a liar and stupid. Good to know. Also, I didn't even realize I was on ignore until recently. The only interaction I had with you was like the end of last year and I didn't realize you'd ignored me until very recently. That rep comment was recent as well.

Taernath

06-02-2014, 04:58 PM

It's a very peaceful place to be so, since he's an internet misogynist, the answer is clear, you need a sex change operation, Tg.

Tg = trans gendered???

Jarvan

06-02-2014, 04:59 PM

You think Obama can override a law passed by Congress by simply saying he refuses to recognize it as law?

And I thought the news anchor who thought Michelle could sign laws was bad.

This is Obama we are talking about. He can do anything he wants, Backwolff won't mind. Neither will WB really.

He can ignore any law he doesn't like as long as he says before hand "I don't like it".

Which BTW.. Once again.. didn't Obama bitch about Bush's Signing statements and say something about them being unconstitutional at one point? Not to mention he said he wouldn't do it.

Good to know he is changing the way Politicians act, huh.

Jarvan

06-02-2014, 05:03 PM

I do think we should have released these 5 detainees.

Preferably by having them kneel and putting a .45 through their skull. Then send the Taliban the video and say.. "They have been released".

Parkbandit

06-02-2014, 05:04 PM

cwolff hates women and Tisket is the proof!

He doesn't hate women.. they just aren't his "thing"...

Tisket

06-02-2014, 05:06 PM

It's Ok though. I'm taking off and will be living in wilderness or on off the grid properties for a while so I won't be on PC much from Thursday on. If I don't say it before I leave I'll say it now, "Smell you all later."

Don't let the doorknob hit you on the ass.

Parkbandit

06-02-2014, 05:06 PM

Considering I had like one back and forth with him and wound up on his ignore list, while you and PB have tormented him for months without getting the same treatment, yes, he doesn't like women arguing with him.

Oh, I got the treatment!

Once he figures out you don't buy his bullshit, he doesn't have any choice but to put you on his list.

Tisket

06-02-2014, 05:09 PM

Oh, I got the treatment!

Once he figures out you don't buy his bullshit, he doesn't have any choice but to put you on his list.

It's a wonderful place to be. You can insult him and everyone sees it but he can't respond because he's too cowardly and weak-willed to even read what you post.

Parkbandit

06-02-2014, 05:09 PM

PB's on my ignore list. He got it for being mean to me and calling me out for my stupidity

Fixed that to reflect the reality the rest of us live in.

It's Ok though. I'm taking off and will just create a new login because I've destroyed this one.

Again, fixed to reflect reality.

Elantari

06-02-2014, 05:11 PM

I do think we should have released these 5 detainees.

Preferably by having them kneel and putting a .45 through their skull. Then send the Taliban the video and say.. "They have been released".

You sound like a perfect candidate for being a member of the Taliban. You're stupid, hate-filled, obedient, zealous and murderous. Are you a fundamentalist religious freak as well?

Johnny Five

06-02-2014, 05:13 PM

Laviticas

06-02-2014, 05:16 PM

Considering I had like one back and forth with him and wound up on his ignore list, while you and PB have tormented him for months without getting the same treatment, yes, he doesn't like women arguing with him.

One thing that will push a liberal over the edge is a woman with a conservative world view. Just look how they bad mouth women that run as Republican.

Thondalar

06-02-2014, 05:32 PM

One thing that will push a liberal over the edge is a woman with a conservative world view. Just look how they bad mouth women that run as Republican.

Hah...even better, try being a black Republican.

Warriorbird

06-02-2014, 05:34 PM

Elantari

06-02-2014, 05:42 PM

One thing that will push a liberal over the edge is a woman with a conservative world view. Just look how they bad mouth women that run as Republican.

This is because liberals don't like Uncle Toms. Conservatives, on the other hand, love them.

Parkbandit

06-02-2014, 05:47 PM

This is because liberals don't like Uncle Toms. Conservatives, on the other hand, love them.

So, if a Black person is conservative, he/she is an "uncle tom".

Fantastic. At least you are dumb enough to admit it.

Latrinsorm

06-02-2014, 05:47 PM

This is Obama we are talking about. He can do anything he wants, Backwolff won't mind. Neither will WB really.

He can ignore any law he doesn't like as long as he says before hand "I don't like it".

Which BTW.. Once again.. didn't Obama bitch about Bush's Signing statements and say something about them being unconstitutional at one point? Not to mention he said he wouldn't do it.

Good to know he is changing the way Politicians act, huh.In December 2007, Obama said "No one doubts that it is appropriate to use signing statements to protect a president’s constitutional prerogatives".

Elantari

06-02-2014, 05:51 PM

So, if a Black person is conservative, he/she is an "uncle tom".

Correct. They are working towards the oppression of themselves and other African Americans. They are voting, whether knowingly or not, against their own enlightened self-interest and the enlightened self-interest of other African Americans. It's all very sad, and all too common.

Archigeek

06-02-2014, 05:54 PM

Bring charges. Maybe you can make a citizen's arrest.

BTW, before you get all black and white about this do keep in mind that 1) Obama's innocent until proven guilty (good luck with proving that) and 2) "When he signed the law last year, Obama issued a signing statement contending that the notification requirement was an unconstitutional infringement on his powers as commander in chief and that he therefore could override it."

Did he break the law? The answer to that is not so simple.

Signing statements are bullshit, and in spite of the wishes of various presidents, they don't change what is law. That said, I think you could have significant debate about whether or not he really did break the law.

I'm glad this guy is coming home, but I think there should be a full investigation. If it's true that six guys died looking for him as a result of desertion on his part, then he should be held accountable, and no, 5 years isn't enough for the lives of at least six service persons.

Thondalar

06-02-2014, 05:59 PM

Correct. They are working towards the oppression of themselves and other African Americans. They are voting, whether knowingly or not, against their own enlightened self-interest and the enlightened self-interest of other African Americans. It's all very sad, and all too common.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=345zdA24QAo

Parkbandit

06-02-2014, 06:03 PM

Back

06-02-2014, 06:18 PM

Even Back isn't touching the whole legality issue.

I lived through 8 years of GWB. I've gotten used to presidential signing statements. Certainly there is dialog out there about the law but overwhelmingly the dialog is about Bergdahl being a deserter.

cwolff

06-02-2014, 07:00 PM

Have a good time. It's nice to let go of electronics sometimes.

No Doubt!

Signing statements are bullshit, and in spite of the wishes of various presidents, they don't change what is law. That said, I think you could have significant debate about whether or not he really did break the law.

I'm glad this guy is coming home, but I think there should be a full investigation. If it's true that six guys died looking for him as a result of desertion on his part, then he should be held accountable, and no, 5 years isn't enough for the lives of at least six service persons.

Agree. Glad he's coming home. We don't need to be leaving POW's out there.

I do wonder about the reasoning behind people getting killed trying to find him. In the Marines the first part of the mission of a rifle squad is to "locate, close with and destroy the enemy by fire and maneuver..." What I'm saying is that in a war zone the job is to go out and fight the enemy. Does it matter if you're fighting them while looking for a deserter, WMD, POW, weapons caches or other objectives?

Tgo01

06-02-2014, 07:03 PM

I do wonder about the reasoning behind people getting killed trying to find him. In the Marines the first part of the mission of a rifle squad is to "locate, close with and destroy the enemy by fire and maneuver..." What I'm saying is that in a war zone the job is to go out and fight the enemy. Does it matter if you're fighting them while looking for a deserter, WMD, POW, weapons caches or other objectives?

Geezus. H. Christ.

Jarvan

06-02-2014, 07:11 PM

Here is a question for the people defending this stupid action.

WHEN these 5 guys return to the Taliban and do something that results in more Americans dying, can we then charge Obama with Accessory? Or Criminal Negligence?

cwolff

06-02-2014, 07:13 PM

Luntz

06-02-2014, 07:14 PM

http://24.media.tumblr.com/caf557f99df74b8d598973853fc837db/tumblr_n6i0299Lam1rncbh7o1_1280.jpg

http://37.media.tumblr.com/b3a44f9a502d64c652b63d7dea7bb2a7/tumblr_n6i0299Lam1rncbh7o7_500.jpg

http://24.media.tumblr.com/22842e6e3961f325ab98dbdf3cec675e/tumblr_n6i0299Lam1rncbh7o2_500.jpg

Taernath

06-02-2014, 07:58 PM

http://news.yahoo.com/us-concluded-2010-bergdahl-walked-away-185047684--politics.html

A Pentagon investigation concluded in 2010 that Army Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl walked away from his unit, and after an initial flurry of searching the military decided not to exert extraordinary efforts to rescue him, according to a former senior defense official who was involved in the matter.

Instead, the U.S. government pursued negotiations to get him back over the following five years of his captivity — a track that led to his release over the weekend.

RichardCranium

06-02-2014, 08:06 PM

http://politichicks.tv/column/yes-sgt-bergdahls-father-really-praise-allah-press-conf-wobama/

I trust this source.

Tisket

06-03-2014, 03:09 AM

Geezus. H. Christ.

Every time I see or hear the phrase, "Jesus H. Christ" I always wonder what the "H" stands for.

Warriorbird

06-03-2014, 05:19 AM

Every time I see or hear the phrase, "Jesus H. Christ" I always wonder what the "H" stands for.

Mark Twain tells an anecdote about it and that's the earliest we can track it down, definitively, in English. It's either "Harold" or an IHS mixup.

RichardCranium

06-03-2014, 05:38 AM

Every time I see or hear the phrase, "Jesus H. Christ" I always wonder what the "H" stands for.

Holy.

Thondalar

06-03-2014, 07:35 AM

Last time I checked, Iran was a country.

Just sayin'.

Parkbandit

06-03-2014, 07:41 AM

Every time I see or hear the phrase, "Jesus H. Christ" I always wonder what the "H" stands for.

HUSSEIN!!!

waywardgs

06-03-2014, 08:35 AM

http://politichicks.tv/column/yes-sgt-bergdahls-father-really-praise-allah-press-conf-wobama/

I trust this source.

Why is his religion relevant?

Is it because Obama is Muslim, loves terrorists, hates America and wants to institute sharia law?

Atlanteax

06-03-2014, 09:05 AM

Last time I checked, Iran was a country.

Just sayin'.

This...

AnticorRifling

06-03-2014, 09:15 AM

Operator community isn't really happy with this fucktard:

http://www.oafnation.com/guests-pieces/2014/6/2/oaf-exclusive-the-truth-about-bowe-bagdahl

RichardCranium

06-03-2014, 09:32 AM

Why is his religion relevant?

Is it because Obama is Muslim, loves terrorists, hates America and wants to institute sharia law?

Indubitably.

cwolff

06-03-2014, 10:13 AM

Last time I checked, Iran was a country.

Just sayin'.

This...

What exactly is meant by this statement? Is it an exoneration of Reagan, a denunciation of Obama or something else entirely.

Gelston

06-03-2014, 10:14 AM

What exactly is meant by this statement? Is it an exoneration of Reagan, a denunciation of Obama or something else entirely.

Iran isn't a terrorist organization, the Al-Qaeda linked network that had the soldier was.

Atlanteax

06-03-2014, 10:27 AM

+1 to the list of things that cwolff fails to comprehend.

cwolff

06-03-2014, 10:27 AM

Iran isn't a terrorist organization, the Al-Qaeda linked network that had the soldier was.

Iran's been a state sponsor of terrorism for a long time and that pre-dates Regean's administration. The Haqqani network is allied with the Taliban who we attacked. They didn't attack us. They did give support and succor to Al Qaeda though, i.e. - state sponsored terrorism. I don't see much of a difference between them and Iran.

Sorcasaurus

06-03-2014, 10:31 AM

Iran isn't a terrorist organization, the Al-Qaeda linked network that had the soldier was.

I say we call them a corporation, the US negotiates with corporations all the time!

Parkbandit

06-03-2014, 11:10 AM

WASHINGTON — Sometime after midnight on June 30, 2009, Pfc. Bowe Bergdahl left behind a note in his tent saying he had become disillusioned with the Army, did not support the American mission in Afghanistan and was leaving to start a new life. He slipped off the remote military outpost in Paktika Province on the border with Pakistan and took with him a soft backpack, water, knives, a notebook and writing materials, but left behind his body armor and weapons — startling, given the hostile environment around his outpost.
That account, provided by a former senior military officer briefed on the investigation into the private’s disappearance, is part of a more complicated picture emerging of the capture of a soldier whose five years as a Taliban prisoner influenced high-level diplomatic negotiations, brought in foreign governments, and ended with him whisked away on a helicopter by American commandos.

From a source that can be trusted by liberals: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/03/us/us-soldier-srgt-bowe-bergdahl-of-idaho-pow-vanished-angered-his-unit.html?hp&_r=0

Parkbandit

06-03-2014, 11:14 AM

Gelston

06-03-2014, 11:19 AM

Tgo01

06-03-2014, 11:22 AM

cwolff is racking up the DURR points in this thread.

Okay so Obama can ignore whatever law he chooses as long as he states he plans on doing so when he signs the law and there is apparently no difference between negotiating with a country and negotiating with a terrorist organization.

Did I miss anything?

waywardgs

06-03-2014, 11:25 AM

So he wanted to leave the army and go hang out with the Taliban? Why did we trade for this guy again? This does seem pretty stupid.

Latrinsorm

06-03-2014, 11:27 AM

So he wanted to leave the army and go hang out with the Taliban? Why did we trade for this guy again? This does seem pretty stupid.You can't spell Talibam without bam, and that's short for Obama. I'm not saying he's an operative of the Taliban, I'm just wondering why he's never explicitly denied being one.

Gelston

06-03-2014, 11:29 AM

He has said he was once a student. Hmmmmmmmmmmm.....

The Taliban (Pashto: طالبان‎ ṭālibān "students")

cwolff

06-03-2014, 11:34 AM

If you fail to see the difference, I don't think anyone can help you understand.

The difference is Semantics. I can't believe that you guys are trying to excuse Regean for the Iran/contra scandal because those terrorists had a better support network than the Taliban.

cwolff is racking up the DURR points in this thread.

Okay so Obama can ignore whatever law he chooses as long as he states he plans on doing so when he signs the law and there is apparently no difference between negotiating with a country and negotiating with a terrorist organization.

Did I miss anything?

The only difference is that Iran supported terrorists who attacked Israel while the Taliban supported terrorists who attacked us.

You all are missing the forest for the words. We have labelled Haqqani and the Talib as terrorists. It's an arbitrary definition we put on them. I don't think they would describe themselves the same way.

Johnny Five

06-03-2014, 11:38 AM

The difference is Semantics. I can't believe that you guys are trying to excuse Regean for the Iran/contra scandal because those terrorists had a better support network than the Taliban.

The only difference is that Iran supported terrorists who attacked Israel while the Taliban supported terrorists who attacked us.

You all are missing the forest for the words. We have labelled Haqqani and the Talib as terrorists. It's an arbitrary definition we put on them. I don't think they would describe themselves the same way.

http://s2.quickmeme.com/img/c9/c99ac52be0de67f886d112fab82edde2b55638ed57fa6db3c6 84e3c25b35f71f.jpg

BUT WHAT ABOUT REAGAN!!!!!

Gelston

06-03-2014, 11:38 AM

cwolff

06-03-2014, 11:56 AM

No, the difference is not Semantics. You are in essence saying that the United States, or Great Britain, or any other nation is on the same level as Al-Qaeda. It is not.

How many seats at the UN do terrorist organizations have?

That's not what I'm saying but I will say this: Not Yet. There is a very definite possibility that the Taliban can win the entire country of Afghanistan in the future and be the recognized state with a seat at the United Nations.

The UN and Isreal recognized the PLO. The UN negotiates with Hezbolah. The IRA has political wings that are recognized. Hamas governs the Gaza strip. The Taliban were currently fighting and winning a civil war for control of the entire country of Afghanistan when we invaded them. The only distinction between terrorist and legitimate political power is recognition and perspective.

I think that it's hard for an American to look at this from different perspectives. Just because we call them terrorist doesn't make them so nor does it give us a moral superiority over them. The only thing that matters, ultimately, is winning. Once you win, you can create the history. Until then all bets are off. We like to think in terms of terrorist thought because it wraps things up in a neat clean little package.

With all that being said, I still can't believe you guys are trying to revise the history of Iran/Contra and blame Obama for getting this POW back. Whether you think Bergdahl's a douchebag or not doesn't matter. He's a Unites States soldier held captive by our enemy. We are obliged to recover him.

Gelston

06-03-2014, 12:08 PM

No one is revising shit. I am pointing out that the nation of Iran and a terrorist organization are not the same thing as you seem to imply they are.

Warriorbird

06-03-2014, 12:10 PM

No one is revising shit. I am pointing out that the nation of Iran and a terrorist organization are not the same thing as you seem to imply they are.

What exactly were the Contras? What was Osama Bin Laden?

Tgo01

06-03-2014, 12:11 PM

There is a very definite possibility that the Taliban can win the entire country of Afghanistan in the future and be the recognized state with a seat at the United Nations.

Then we would be dealing with the nation of Afghanistan; not the Taliban. I'll give you an A for effort on this one.

The Taliban were currently fighting and winning a civil war for control of the entire country of Afghanistan when we invaded them.

I thought the Taliban already controlled Afghanistan when we invaded them?

Gelston

06-03-2014, 12:14 PM

What exactly were the Contras? What was Osama Bin Laden?

I am not talking about Contras, Reagan or any of that. I am specifically speaking of him comparing a Nation to a terrorist organization.

NinjasLeadTheWay

06-03-2014, 12:16 PM

We are our own worst enemy.

Tgo01

06-03-2014, 12:16 PM

Let me see if I can try to explain this to you, cwolff...

Imagine Joe Schmoe tries to broker peace and trade deals with foreign nations and everyone laughs at him because he's just a schmoe. Then 5 years later Joe Schmoe becomes president and does the exact some thing and no one cracks a smile because he's now the president and he's supposed to do those things.

The person didn't change at all, his status/position/whatever you want to call it did.

Taernath

06-03-2014, 12:25 PM

Then we would be dealing with the nation of Afghanistan; not the Taliban. I'll give you an A for effort on this one.

Eh, the Taliban is the Taliban, whether they're wearing a mandress squatting in a cave or wearing a mandress sitting in the Prime Minister's chair. This is why there's so much concern about 'legitimizing' them.

cwolff

06-03-2014, 12:27 PM

No one is revising shit. I am pointing out that the nation of Iran and a terrorist organization are not the same thing as you seem to imply they are.

I guess I don't understand what your point is or why you're making it. Sure they're not the same exact thing. The difference is political, just like a boundary is political. Iran was and still is a state sponsor of terrorism and the Taliban and Haqqani are too except they're not recognized as states. It's semantics and political but has no bearing on what's actual.

Then we would be dealing with the nation of Afghanistan; not the Taliban. I'll give you an A for effort on this one.

I thought the Taliban already controlled Afghanistan when we invaded them?

That's so stupid I can't believe you wrote that. Ever heard of Burma? Countries can and do change names.

Let me see if I can try to explain this to you, cwolff...

Imagine Joe Schmoe tries to broker peace and trade deals with foreign nations and everyone laughs at him because he's just a schmoe. Then 5 years later Joe Schmoe becomes president and does the exact some thing and no one cracks a smile because he's now the president and he's supposed to do those things.

The person didn't change at all, his status/position/whatever you want to call it did.

Thank you Tg. You just proved my point that it's semantics.

Gelston

06-03-2014, 12:29 PM

I guess I don't understand what your point is or why you're making it. Sure they're not the same exact thing. The difference is political, just like a boundary is political. Iran was and still is a state sponsor of terrorism and the Taliban and Haqqani are too except they're not recognized as states. It's semantics and political but has no bearing on what's actual.

Is semantics your new favorite word? It has EVERYTHING to do with the issue. Politics is what rules the world.

Tgo01

06-03-2014, 12:30 PM

Eh, the Taliban is the Taliban, whether they're wearing a mandress squatting in a cave or wearing a mandress sitting in the Prime Minister's chair.

True, but if they are in charge of an entire nation what is the alternative? We can't just pretend that entire country doesn't exist. I mean...I guess we can...but I doubt the world is going to follow suit.

Ever heard of Burma? Countries can and do change names.

Oh....kay?

Thank you Tg. You just proved my point that it's semantics.

You read that post of mine and got "it's all semantics" out of it? :/

Why didn't I take my own advice from yesterday?

Latrinsorm

06-03-2014, 12:34 PM

What exactly were the Contras?http://static.giantbomb.com/uploads/scale_small/8/87790/1841702-box_contra3.png
What was Osama Bin Laden?A clever ruse. So-called "Osama bin Laden" was actually a photographic composite of Jordanians. I know what you're saying "umm Osama was from Saudi Arabia", need I remind you that that was a ruse? The construct was used first by Bush to consolidate power for his tyrannical fascist dictatorship then by Obama to consolidate power for his tyrannical socialist dictatorship.

Latrinsorm

06-03-2014, 12:34 PM

True, but if they are in charge of an entire nation what is the alternative? We can't just pretend that entire country doesn't exist. I mean...I guess we can...but I doubt the world is going to follow suit.China? Palestine?

Tgo01

06-03-2014, 12:35 PM

China? Palestine?

Never heard of them.

Taernath

06-03-2014, 12:39 PM

Tgo01

06-03-2014, 12:40 PM

International pariah, like North Korea.

I can get on board with that.

cwolff

06-03-2014, 12:42 PM

Is semantics your new favorite word? It has EVERYTHING to do with the issue. Politics is what rules the world.

G, Politics rule the world. The Haqqani Network and the Taliban are political players with political power. They just exercised that power by negotiating through the nation of Qatar a prisoner of war exchange with the United States. That's what I mean by the difference in quibbling over words and the reality of power.

LIke it or not they have political power, they just demonstrated it.

You read that post of mine and got "it's all semantics" out of it? :/

I read this post:

Imagine Joe Schmoe tries to broker peace and trade deals with foreign nations and everyone laughs at him because he's just a schmoe. Then 5 years later Joe Schmoe becomes president and does the exact some thing and no one cracks a smile because he's now the president and he's supposed to do those things.

The person didn't change at all, his status/position/whatever you want to call it did.

What you are saying is what I've been saying. No one's laughing at the Haqqani network or the Taliban. Like it or not they have real power.

Tgo01

06-03-2014, 12:44 PM

What you are saying is what I've been saying. No one's laughing at the Haqqani network or the Taliban. Like it or not they have real power.

You're saying nation states are not the same thing as terrorist organizations? Well heck, why don't you apologize to Gelston already and we can move on?

Gelston

06-03-2014, 12:48 PM

G, Politics rule the world. The Haqqani Network and the Taliban are political players with political power. They just exercised that power by negotiating through the nation of Qatar a prisoner of war exchange with the United States. That's what I mean by the difference in quibbling over words and the reality of power.

LIke it or not they have political power, they just demonstrated it.

I read this post:

What you are saying is what I've been saying. No one's laughing at the Haqqani network or the Taliban. Like it or not they have real power.

Yes, but they are not the equivalent in political power to a nation.

cwolff

06-03-2014, 12:50 PM

You're saying nation states are not the same thing as terrorist organizations? Well heck, why don't you apologize to Gelston already and we can move on?

I"m saying something different which is that Iran Contra is not made better because Iran is a country. Did we even recognize the legitimacy of the Iranian government during Iran/Contra?

Do keep in mind that the only reason this is coming up is because someone suggested that the U.S. doesn't negotiate with terrorists. We do. Always have and always will.

Latrinsorm

06-03-2014, 12:51 PM

Yes, but they are not the equivalent in political power to a nation.Who has more power, the Taliban or Liechtenstein?

cwolff

06-03-2014, 12:51 PM

Yes, but they are not the equivalent in political power to a nation.

They have more political power than say, Andorra or some shitty 3rd World place we've never heard of. They are able to project power within their borders and beyond. I'd say they have as much political power as some other nations.

Gelston

06-03-2014, 12:53 PM

Who has more power, the Taliban or Liechtenstein?

Liechtenstein. If the Taliban attempted to invade Liechtenstein, they'd fail completely. Liechtenstein is also the richest German speaking nation in the world.

Gelston

06-03-2014, 12:57 PM

They have more political power than say, Andorra or some shitty 3rd World place we've never heard of. They are able to project power within their borders and beyond. I'd say they have as much political power as some other nations.

Being a recognized nation de facto gives more political power. Again, the Taliban and Al-Qaeda are organizations, not nations. This whole thing is about Obama freeing 5 top Taliban officials in negotiation with a terrorist organization. Not a nation.

If Andorra held our servicemembers, I'd have 0 issue with him freeing 5 top Andorran officials in exchange.

Taernath

06-03-2014, 12:58 PM

Liechtenstein. If the Taliban attempted to invade Liechtenstein, they'd fail completely. Liechtenstein is also the richest German speaking nation in the world.

One on one, Deadliest Warrior style Taliban would probably win as Liechtensten doesn't have a military.

Advantage: Taliban.

Gelston

06-03-2014, 12:59 PM

One on one, Deadliest Warrior style Taliban would probably win as Liechtensten doesn't have a military.

Shit, it'd have the best PMC money could buy if it needed.

Switzerland did accidentally invade them in 2007 though.

Taernath

06-03-2014, 01:00 PM

Shit, it'd have the best PMC money could buy if it needed.

I guess, but look how much trouble we've been having.

Gelston

06-03-2014, 01:02 PM

I guess, but look how much trouble we've been having.

Don't forget they are German speaking too. Their language can scare small children easily.

Taernath

06-03-2014, 01:05 PM

Don't forget they are German speaking too. Their language can scare small children easily.

Pashto is a pretty harsh language too, and those children that are scared will just be driven into the arms of the Taliban's child soldier brigades.

Advantage: Taliban.

Gelston

06-03-2014, 01:07 PM

Pashto is a pretty harsh language too, and those children that are scared will just be driven into the arms of the Taliban's child soldier brigades.

Advantage: Taliban.

You drive by the Taliban kids with a truck with a bunch of shit hanging off it they'll flock to it and ignore their own safety trying to steal random stuff off it. Children neutralized.

Taernath

06-03-2014, 01:10 PM

You drive by the Taliban kids with a truck with a bunch of shit hanging off it they'll flock to it and ignore their own safety trying to steal random stuff off it. Children neutralized.

Did your Alienware laptop with analytical software say that? I guess I have to concede the point.

Gelston

06-03-2014, 01:12 PM

Did your Alienware laptop with analytical software say that? I guess I have to concede the point.

MY experience in Afghanistan did :P

Latrinsorm

06-03-2014, 01:46 PM

Liechtenstein. If the Taliban attempted to invade Liechtenstein, they'd fail completely. Liechtenstein is also the richest German speaking nation in the world.Surely invasions are expressions of military power, and wealth an expression of economic power. Which of the two has more political power?

Jarvan

06-03-2014, 01:46 PM

Iran's been a state sponsor of terrorism for a long time and that pre-dates Regean's administration. The Haqqani network is allied with the Taliban who we attacked. They didn't attack us. They did give support and succor to Al Qaeda though, i.e. - state sponsored terrorism. I don't see much of a difference between them and Iran.

Lets put it this way....

If a Colombian Drug Cartel kidnapped a DEA agent in Colombia, and then demanded the release of 5 highly placed drug cartel people. Would we do the trade? Would you think it was a good trade?

Now lets imagine that this DEA agent was thinking of joining the cartel.

Would we be negotiating with Colombia? No.

Frankly, this just seems to me like it's going to start more kidnappings, even within the US. If we are willing to hand over 5 terrorists and killers for one soldier who deserted and should be court martialed, imagine what they would give for someone actually important.

Imagine what we would give for a live ambassador for instance.

besides.. a state that sponsors terrorism, is not a terrorist organization. The fact that you don't see that is just sad.

Gelston

06-03-2014, 01:47 PM

Surely invasions are expressions of military power, and wealth an expression of economic power. Which of the two has more political power?

Lichtenstein.

Jarvan

06-03-2014, 01:51 PM

I guess I don't understand what your point is or why you're making it. Sure they're not the same exact thing. The difference is political, just like a boundary is political. Iran was and still is a state sponsor of terrorism and the Taliban and Haqqani are too except they're not recognized as states. It's semantics and political but has no bearing on what's actual.

That's so stupid I can't believe you wrote that. Ever heard of Burma? Countries can and do change names.

Thank you Tg. You just proved my point that it's semantics.

Afghanistan is going to change it's name to Taliban? Maybe Talibania?

Are you sure you are not the stupid one?

Tenlaar

06-03-2014, 01:56 PM

besides.. a state that sponsors terrorism, is not a terrorist organization. The fact that you don't see that is just sad.

If person A pays for person B to kill person C, person A will still go to jail for person C's murder. Why do our values change all of the sudden when it becomes government A pays for terrorist organization B to terrorize population C? Why does government A get a pass when person A does not?

Gelston

06-03-2014, 01:58 PM

If person A pays for person B to kill person C, person A will still go to jail for person C's murder. Why do our values change all of the sudden when it becomes government A pays for terrorist organization B to terrorize population C? Why does government A get a pass when person A does not?

Government A doesn't get a pass. See Taliban when they used to be a ruling government.

cwolff

06-03-2014, 02:09 PM

Lets put it this way....

If a Colombian Drug Cartel kidnapped a DEA agent in Colombia, and then demanded the release of 5 highly placed drug cartel people. Would we do the trade? Would you think it was a good trade?

Now lets imagine that this DEA agent was thinking of joining the cartel.

Would we be negotiating with Colombia? No.

Frankly, this just seems to me like it's going to start more kidnappings, even within the US. If we are willing to hand over 5 terrorists and killers for one soldier who deserted and should be court martialed, imagine what they would give for someone actually important.

Imagine what we would give for a live ambassador for instance.

besides.. a state that sponsors terrorism, is not a terrorist organization. The fact that you don't see that is just sad.

Are Haqqani or the Taliban terrorists? The wording is getting in the way of you seeing. Haqqani and the Taliban are basically states albeit unrecognized. They have the same thing going there as the Kurds had in Northern Iraq.

BTW, we do and have negotiated with drug cartels. We negotiate with everyone even criminals.

According to the report, U.S. agents held more than 50 secret meetings with cartel operatives on Mexican territory between 2000 and 2012 -- without informing Mexican authorities. Article (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/01/13/dea-negotiated-mexico-drug-cartels_n_4590832.html)

Afghanistan is going to change it's name to Taliban? Maybe Talibania?

Are you sure you are not the stupid one?

Why is that stupid? Burma changed it's name. Bolivia changed it's name. Many countries have changed their name when a new power takes over.

Then we would be dealing with the nation of Afghanistan; not the Taliban. I'll give you an A for effort on this one.

You and Tg are arguing this for no reason. The name of the country is irrelevant and it's not up to us what they call themselves. We don't get a vote. If they want to change it in the future they can and will. I'm not sure why this is controversial or contentious. Guess it goes back to my new favorite word (as Gelston would say) Semantics. You guys just get hung up on words and it clouds your ability to think clearly.

cwolff

06-03-2014, 02:13 PM

Iran isn't a terrorist organization, the Al-Qaeda linked network that had the soldier was.

If you fail to see the difference, I don't think anyone can help you understand.

Government A doesn't get a pass. See Taliban when they used to be a ruling government.

It sounds like you're either contradicting yourself or you admit that there's not much difference between the Taliban and Iran when it comes to negotiating with terrorist sponsors.

Gelston

06-03-2014, 02:15 PM

It sounds like you're either contradicting yourself or you admit that there's not much difference between the Taliban and Iran when it comes to negotiating with terrorist sponsors.

It isn't a contradiction. The Taliban at one time was a national Government. It hasn't been one since the end of 2001. The same way that the Ba'ath Party was once the Government of Iraq, but it no longer is and the remnants became terrorist elements.

cwolff

06-03-2014, 02:32 PM

It isn't a contradiction. The Taliban at one time was a national Government. It hasn't been one since the end of 2001. The same way that the Ba'ath Party was once the Government of Iraq, but it no longer is and the remnants became terrorist elements.

Dude, it's not like Afghans or Iraqi's voted to change government. We invaded and drove both of them from power. Call it what you want but if Might makes Right then these groups are perfectly within their rights to kill and capture Americans in the pursuit of political objectives. Doesn't matter if they have a seat at the U.N. or are recognized as a nation-state. It makes the whole "at least Iran is a country" argument void.

Gelston

06-03-2014, 02:41 PM

Dude, it's not like Afghans or Iraqi's voted to change government. We invaded and drove both of them from power. Call it what you want but if Might makes Right then these groups are perfectly within their rights to kill and capture Americans in the pursuit of political objectives. Doesn't matter if they have a seat at the U.N. or are recognized as a nation-state. It makes the whole "at least Iran is a country" argument void.

And they had elections afterwards that didn't put these people back in power.

Iran's old Government was overthrown from within by its own people anyways. They created their current Government and nation. Before they did it, Iran was a Western puppet.

It doesn't make shit void, either way. The lists that we created, that Obama and his people agree with and add to, list those organizations and terrorist organizations.

cwolff

06-03-2014, 02:55 PM

And they had elections afterwards that didn't put these people back in power.

Iran's old Government was overthrown from within by its own people anyways. They created their current Government and nation. Before they did it, Iran was a Western puppet.

It doesn't make shit void, either way. The lists that we created, that Obama and his people agree with and add to, list those organizations and terrorist organizations.

This is why I've been using the word semantics and you poked fun at me for it. A stroke of the pen and they are re-classified as "terrorists". Do you see what I'm saying?

Keep in mind I started this by asking Thond and ATL what difference it makes that Iran was a country compared to the Taliban who currently have no country. I believe Iran was on some list anyway and they sure as hell weren't a legitimate government in the eyes of the U.S.A.

Iran, at the time engaged in a war with Iraq and considered a terrorist nation by the U.S. Source (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/features/general-article/reagan-foreign/)

Gelston

06-03-2014, 03:23 PM

It isn't semantics though, or do you find it highly technical in nature? I see a very EASY distinction between the Taliban and Al-Qaeda and the Government of Iran.

cwolff

06-03-2014, 03:47 PM

It isn't semantics though, or do you find it highly technical in nature? I see a very EASY distinction between the Taliban and Al-Qaeda and the Government of Iran.

Ya I see it as a technical distinction. For me, the reality is that you have power if you are able to exercise power. Doesn't matter what we call you or what kind of list we put you on. The enemy has a vote, right? Beyond that this whole Berghdal thing is just political. We like to talk all the tough talk, "USA doesn't negotiate with terrorists" etc... but we do and will in the future. I also think that the only difference between terrorism and "legitimate" warfare is the amount of force one group can bring to bear on another. We use the word with a decidedly negative connotation but one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.

Gelston

06-03-2014, 03:48 PM

Ya I see it as a technical distinction. For me, the reality is that you have power if you are able to exercise power. Doesn't matter what we call you or what kind of list we put you on. The enemy has a vote, right? Beyond that this whole Berghdal thing is just political. We like to talk all the tough talk, "USA doesn't negotiate with terrorists" etc... but we do and will in the future. I also think that the only difference between terrorism and "legitimate" warfare is the amount of force one group can bring to bear on another. We use the word with a decidedly negative connotation but one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.

So, large gang and criminal organizations are equal to nations in your view too?

waywardgs

06-03-2014, 03:50 PM

So, large gang and criminal organizations are equal to nations in your view too?

I bet the Mexican cartels have as much or more political power than the Mexican government at this point.

cwolff

06-03-2014, 03:55 PM

So, large gang and criminal organizations are equal to nations in your view too?

Different but powerful nonetheless. We do ourselves a disservice if we try to fashion policy that doesn't take their power into account.

Gelston

06-03-2014, 03:59 PM

Different but powerful nonetheless. We do ourselves a disservice if we try to fashion policy that doesn't take their power into account.

There is a difference, and still. The technical definition is what matters in the first place. These groups he broke this deal with are certified terrorist organizations that he himself signed off on. You keep pulling away from this and saying other things, but the fact remains. Under US Federal law they are terror organizations. Iran is a nation. Under US AND International Law, it is a nation.

cwolff

06-03-2014, 04:04 PM

There is a difference, and still. The technical definition is what matters in the first place. These groups he broke this deal with are certified terrorist organizations that he himself signed off on. You keep pulling away from this and saying other things, but the fact remains. Under US Federal law they are terror organizations. Iran is a nation. Under US AND International Law, it is a nation.

I don't know that the Obama broke the law. He certainly didn't by negotiating this trade. There is no law against that. The only issue seems to be that he didn't inform congress 30 days in advance and this is a very tough case to make. If they actually do try to impeach or adjudicate this in some way there's no guarantee that the Congress won't lose and thereby lose some power to the Executive Branch, not theoretically but officially and legally. The only thing they can do with this is twist it into a political campaign message to rile up the base.