DescentBB

In my opinion, the actions of U.S. foreign policy, comments, remarks and behavior of senior U.S. officials in relation to the situations in Iraq, Syria and Ukraine clearly demonstrated brain atrophy U.S. political elite on the background of their complacency, permissiveness, and overly inflated ego.

Yes sigma...we get it already!

CUDA wrote:So wait!!!!!

He's innocent until proven guilty. And deserves a trial.
But the President can target and kill US citizens with drones with no trial at all.

your double standards are showing again.

He's a member of the U.S. military. They have jurisdiction over his disposition and fate. That's military law and justice. We don't leave our men in the hands of the enemy.

As for Obama targeting Americans overseas, that IS a questionable action. It may feel good to blow up traitorous American terrorist bastards, but it shouldn't be legal for any president to order it unilaterally on his say so.

tunnelcat wrote:...

He's a member of the U.S. military. They have jurisdiction over his disposition and fate. That's military law and justice. We don't leave our men in the hands of the enemy....

Sure we do! Sometimes the price to retrieve thm is too high in blood or principle.
In this case no price was too high for Obama to knock the VA story to the back burner...
What a guy!

tunnelcat wrote:

We don't leave our men in the hands of the enemy.

Tell that to the Vietnam POW's that never got released.

Funny how Obama first took all the glory for the prisoner swap but now that there are "Issues" with the deal Obama now says Hagel had the final say. So once again the Child in Charge tries to blame someone else.:

"FInal approval for the prisoner exchange that freed Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl was made by Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel, members of Congress learned on Monday from administration officials."

'They indicated (it was) Secretary Hagel (who made the final call),' Rep. Buck McKeon (R-CA) said after a classified briefing, ABC points out.

'It was the president of the United States that came out (in the Rose Garden) with the Bergdahls and took all the credit and now that there’s been a little pushback he’s moving away from it and it’s Secretary Hagel?'

woodchip wrote:

tunnelcat wrote:

We don't leave our men in the hands of the enemy.

Tell that to the Vietnam POW's that never got released.

No, we instead vilified the last known one released with unproven accusations of working for the enemy. Plus, when he stated that there were more POW's left, John McCain went into full attack mode just to discredit the former POW. Maybe there are still some there, but McCain doesn't want to hear about it.

http://www.salem-news.com/articles/may2 ... -28-08.php

tunnelcat wrote:

woodchip wrote:

tunnelcat wrote:

We don't leave our men in the hands of the enemy.

Tell that to the Vietnam POW's that never got released.

No, we instead vilified the last known one released with unproven accusations of working for the enemy. Plus, when he stated that there were more POW's left, John McCain went into full attack mode just to discredit the former POW. Maybe there are still some there, but McCain doesn't want to hear about it.

http://www.salem-news.com/articles/may2 ... -28-08.php

Besides being a near complete non sequitur to Woody's point aren't you contradicting your previous assertion that we don't leave any behind by citing evidence there are some left behind?

umm, I read that link as stating that the matter is in question.

callmeslick wrote:umm, I read that link as stating that the matter is in question.

And do you read TC's comment as suggesting we may have left POW's there or is it somehow consistent with her previous assertion that we do not leave them?

Will Robinson wrote:

callmeslick wrote:umm, I read that link as stating that the matter is in question.

And do you read TC's comment as suggesting we may have left POW's there or is it somehow consistent with her previous assertion that we do not leave them?

right, it introduced doubt. McCain denies it, others claim there were POWs left. The point is, that the efforts of the government have always towards getting full returns, in every case. If some were overlooked, who knows at this point, but the vast majority, you would agree, were returned to their nation and families. So it should be with this case, and those whining show VERY dubious patriotism and loyalty to our troops. Those troops that have spoken out, generally out of anger over attempts to rescue which failed, overlook the fact that they would be sought should they have gone missing, too. Like I said, earlier, it's a sad state of affairs when something like this deal was even complained about, but that's our modern, contentious nation. Heaven help us.......

Will Robinson wrote:

callmeslick wrote:umm, I read that link as stating that the matter is in question.

And do you read TC's comment as suggesting we may have left POW's there or is it somehow consistent with her previous assertion that we do not leave them?

According to McCain, we haven't left any. But according to Garwood, we have. So who's telling the truth? And that IS a related to woody's point. If McCain is right, we haven't left any POWs in Vietnam like he asserts and woody is wrong.

Wikipedia wrote:Considerable speculation and investigation has gone to a hypothesis that a significant number of these men were captured as prisoners of war by Communist forces in the two countries and kept as live prisoners after the war's conclusion for the United States in 1973. A vocal group of POW/MIA activists maintains that there has been a concerted conspiracy by the Vietnamese government and every American government since then to hide the existence of these prisoners. The U.S. government has steadfastly denied that prisoners were left behind or that any effort has been made to cover up their existence.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vietnam_War_POW/MIA_issue

TC, what you and slick are trying to hide from is the reality that sometimes we DONT get them back. Sometimes we even refuse to trade for them. As we did previously in this case.
Obama tried months ago and Democrats and Repubs all said no and for good reason!
He then promised he wouldn't do this deal without them when they turned him down.
Then he suddenly found a 'need' and it wasn't the imminent threat that he wants you to believe.
It was public relations...image management...and it backfired big time. Proving there is some karma even in Washington.

Will Robinson wrote:TC, what you and slick are trying to hide from is the reality that sometimes we DONT get them back. Sometimes we even refuse to trade for them. As we did previously in this case.

actually virtually everyone involved denies EVER refusing to trade for anyone. EVER.
.[/quote]

Yep. And yes Will, sometimes we DON'T get them back, but it shouldn't be for lack of trying.







And we got McCain and a bunch of other POWs back with Operation Homecoming, a prisoner swap with our commy enemy, the Viet Cong. Heaven forbid we negotiate with an enemy!

and like a poor marksman you keep missing the target.

this is about WHO we traded and for Whom we traded and HOW the President violated the law in doing so.


and on a side note

The terrorists who attacked the U.S. consulate and CIA annex in Benghazi on September 11, 2012 used cell phones, seized from State Department personnel during the attacks, and U.S. spy agencies overheard them contacting more senior terrorist leaders to report on the success of the operation,

ya it was all about the Video

Talk about getting sidetracked. Plus, why are those 5 guys worse than 1500 missiles as a trade for our people? And the president didn't violate the law, he went around it like any politician with half an ounce of brains would with his signing statement tactic. I think Bush abused that more than Obama ever has.

By the way, from what I understand a good many Guantanamo prisoners have suffered immense psychological torture (another reason that place should have been closed years ago) and it is possible those who were released may not have their minds intact. Just sayin'.

When Bush did it, they called it bending the rul- err "guidelines". When Obama does it, its ILLEGAL!

It was a bad deal to make.
'Bad' as measured by both parties and all the military advisers before he did it.
So if you aren't one of the people wearing his rectum as a uniform head dress you will ask why he did it.
The answer is it wasn't for anyone other than himself.

And that kind of abuse is worthy of getting hammered by those you didn't do it for.

vision wrote:By the way, from what I understand a good many Guantanamo prisoners have suffered immense psychological torture (another reason that place should have been closed years ago) and it is possible those who were released may not have their minds intact. Just sayin'.

that was a good part of my point. Look at the communication skills of Bergdahl, and picture how with-it those guys are after a decade at Gitmo.....

We released hundreds of minor players from gitmo.
We have never traded the top enemy command types for a deserter.

All these attempts to paint this deal as typical are smoke.

nonsense.

Will Robinson wrote:We released hundreds of minor players from gitmo.
We have never traded the top enemy command types for a deserter.

Again, not likely any of these 5 will be a major player in future engagements. It is more probable that these guys, if they are coherent at all, will have so much PTSD as to be useless in any kind of management role. We didn't trade 5 top commanders. Those guys are long gone. We traded 5 symbolic empty shells for one American empty shell.

Also, if this guy we traded was a deserter, then hat's off to him. It was a shitty war to begin with. Soldiers have a responsibility to not follow immoral orders. With all your anti-government jabbering you should be hailing this guy as one who can see through the lies.

Seriously, with United States track record of ★■◆●ing-over every single country, why would you possibly think the Taliban got any kind of fair deal whatsoever? Hahaha. Dumb.

Plus, you can bet we're keeping in eye in the sky on these bozos.

more likely a tail on the ground in Qatar. That nation has been building ties with the US military establishment for a while.

vision wrote:Also, if this guy we traded was a deserter, then hat's off to him. It was a shitty war to begin with. Soldiers have a responsibility to not follow immoral orders.

Tell that to the parents of the dead soldiers who went to "rescue" him.

Spidey wrote:

vision wrote:Also, if this guy we traded was a deserter, then hat's off to him. It was a **** war to begin with. Soldiers have a responsibility to not follow immoral orders.

Tell that to the parents of the dead soldiers who went to "rescue" him.

why this keeps getting brought up, as if it is pertinent, astounds me. Unless someone is suggesting that Bergdahl wandered off in order to lure US troops into an ambush, which I haven't heard anyone do, it has NO bearing on the matter.

So you call me out on this but leave vision's dumb ass statement alone.

..............................

And JFTR…no it has no bearing on the trade, but it has every bearing in the context I used it here and before.

You go tell the parents of those dead soldiers that their children are fighting an “immoral” war and died trying to rescue a deserter.

In case you don’t get it my point here was in response to vision, not the trade, so please learn some context.

callmeslick wrote:

Spidey wrote:

why this keeps getting brought up, as if it is pertinent, astounds me. Unless someone is suggesting that Bergdahl wandered off in order to lure US troops into an ambush, which I haven't heard anyone do, it has NO bearing on the matter.

When he deserted did he not think people would come looking for him and that some of them might get hurt or killed?

I think it highly unlikely that he thought it through to that extent.....folks who are troubled seldom do.

Slick give me an example of us trading enemy command for a deserter. Either that or your blanket "nonsense" dismissal is pure slick sphincter material.

You guys are funny! Eye in the sky....a tail on the ground....we've been working with them...etc

Fantasy. We have no authority or input to the future movement and have no idea where they will be going.

Vision do you really believe those guys are incapacitated mentally? I think you are just hoping for that to justify setting them free.

Will Robinson wrote:We have no authority or input to the future movement and have no idea where they will be going.

which, you know.....why? I said I strongly suspect we do have contact on the ground. You provided exactly ZERO to suggest otherwise.

Vision do you really believe those guys are incapacitated mentally? I think you are just hoping for that to justify setting them free.

I think Vision and I both suggested that one look at the deterioration in Bergdahl, and the likelihood that their captivity was far worse, and make the intelligent guess oneself.

I would guess it wouldn’t take all that long to recover.

Spidey wrote:I would guess it wouldn’t take all that long to recover.

from PTSD? If you know something, you may wish to pass the technique along to the VA and others......

callmeslick wrote:

Will Robinson wrote:We have no authority or input to the future movement and have no idea where they will be going.

which, you know.....why? I said I strongly suspect we do have contact on the ground. You provided exactly ZERO to suggest otherwise.

Vision do you really believe those guys are incapacitated mentally? I think you are just hoping for that to justify setting them free.

I think Vision and I both suggested that one look at the deterioration in Bergdahl, and the likelihood that their captivity was far worse, and make the intelligent guess oneself.

I'm quoting the Obama administration and congress members who seem to think they know that the deal included the exclusion of any US involvement. It was in numerous news reports so I'm surprised you didn't really know that.

And I'm just guessing but I bet guys that cut heads and hands and other body parts off are worse wardens than guys that try to scare you but give you lawyers and prayer rugs, etc.
Besides, didn't you already declare Bergdahl was mentally unfit before he walked off the base? Seems like you are trying to have it both ways there...

callmeslick wrote:

Spidey wrote:I would guess it wouldn’t take all that long to recover.

from PTSD? If you know something, you may wish to pass the technique along to the VA and others......

Something that only happens to a relative few....

care to cite some statistics to back that up, relative to long captivity in foreign places, coupled with periods of torture and solitary confinement?

Spidey wrote:Tell that to the parents of the dead soldiers who went to "rescue" him.

The connection between these 6 dead soldiers and Bergdahl is sketchy at best. Also, I'm sure we will have someone blaming these 5 deaths on Bergdahl too, and maybe these as well.

Spidey wrote:Something that only happens to a relative few....

Are you suggesting that very few veterans suffer PTSD? My father would like to have a word with you.

Understand the difference between relative few and very few…genius.