3rdnlng Posted June 9, 2014 Share Posted June 9, 2014 wow. i was wrong. some of you guys actually do have an imagination. unfortunately what results is simultaneously bizarre and infantile. Can you defend Obama's actions of swapping 5 bad guys (who most likely will get right back into killing Americans) for what looks like a deserter? He knowingly and intentionally did this against the law and used flimsy lies to explain away his actions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drinkTHEkoolaid Posted June 9, 2014 Share Posted June 9, 2014 Can you defend Obama's actions of swapping 5 bad guys (who most likely will get right back into killing Americans) for what looks like a deserter? He knowingly and intentionally did this against the law and used flimsy lies to explain away his actions. What difference does it make?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted June 9, 2014 Share Posted June 9, 2014 wow. i was wrong. some of you guys actually do have an imagination. unfortunately what results is simultaneously bizarre and infantile. I understand your thinking. I really do. Love is hard. But if you were able to take off the lovebeads, you'd see a man who's one leaked email away from making a Chris Crocker video about himself. The only thing keeping me tuned in is his ultimate breakdown the minute he has to hobble his incompetent way against Hillary next year. It's got Lou Albano/Cindy Lauper written all over it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birdog1960 Posted June 9, 2014 Share Posted June 9, 2014 Can you defend Obama's actions of swapping 5 bad guys (who most likely will get right back into killing Americans) for what looks like a deserter? He knowingly and intentionally did this against the law and used flimsy lies to explain away his actions. i think obama's repeated point of leaving no soldier behind is legit. the legality will surely be examined. we'll see how that question is resolved. i think it's fair to assume the attorney general felt the move was legal. finally there's this: http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/apr/19/guantanamo-bay-detainees-release-unlikely-end-afghanistan-war. none of it is as simple or straightforward as yall are attempting to portray. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted June 9, 2014 Share Posted June 9, 2014 i think obama's repeated point of leaving no soldier behind is legit. So is saying saying "We support our troop!" and "Cancer sucks!" Big freaking deal. It's what he did to get the guy back that has people upset. And by people, I don't mean peons like you and me. I mean people who gobble Obama's knob for a living...Feinstein and Panetta. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted June 9, 2014 Share Posted June 9, 2014 i think obama's repeated point of leaving no soldier behind is legit. the legality will surely be examined. we'll see how that question is resolved. i think it's fair to assume the attorney general felt the move was legal. finally there's this: http://www.theguardi...afghanistan-war. none of it is as simple or straightforward as yall are attempting to portray. POW's are typically not considered "left behind." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted June 9, 2014 Share Posted June 9, 2014 i think obama's repeated point of leaving no soldier behind is legit. the legality will surely be examined. we'll see how that question is resolved. i think it's fair to assume the attorney general felt the move was legal. finally there's this: http://www.theguardi...afghanistan-war. none of it is as simple or straightforward as yall are attempting to portray. See the below link. Bergdahl converted to Islam in 2010 and declared jihad on the U.S. At that time he was a prime candidate for Obama's get acquainted with a drone program. Obama was going to do whatever suited his purposes. Kill him or try to make him a hero---whatever fit for Obama. As far as Eric Holder's take on the legality of it is hilarious. Do you actually think that the Attorney General has one iota of integrity left after all he has done? http://video.foxnews.com/v/3608821647001/documents-show-bergdahl-converted-to-islam-declared-jihad-/?intcmp=obnetwork#sp=show-clips Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted June 9, 2014 Share Posted June 9, 2014 Barry supporters just keep on drinking the Kool-Aid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nanker Posted June 9, 2014 Share Posted June 9, 2014 No child left behind - another bastardization of a Bush initiative. He certainly shows NO compunction against leaving thousands of unchaperoned children behind at detention centers in Arizona. Such compassion. I expect to see him in drag at a press conference soon. He's the Nanny-in-Chief. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birdog1960 Posted June 9, 2014 Share Posted June 9, 2014 (edited) as the guardian article points out, the 5 guantanimo prisoners may not have been "given away". their release may well have been inevitable. there are certain to be legal challenges to keeping afghan prisoners of war now that the war has ended. asnd they will have a good case. Edited June 9, 2014 by birdog1960 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magox Posted June 9, 2014 Share Posted June 9, 2014 i think obama's repeated point of leaving no soldier behind is legit. the legality will surely be examined. we'll see how that question is resolved. i think it's fair to assume the attorney general felt the move was legal. finally there's this: http://www.theguardi...afghanistan-war. none of it is as simple or straightforward as yall are attempting to portray. I think the point that many are either willfully not wanting to acknowledge or simply just ignoring is, at what cost? Would you have traded Khalid Sheikh Mohammed for this soldier? Would that mantra still apply if the bid was this high? Also, would any prisoner have the same value? I know this is an extreme hypothetical, but it applies, would a sitting US senator have the same value as a soldier who possibly deserted? So the question is Do we bring back any soldier at any cost? See the below link. Bergdahl converted to Islam in 2010 and declared jihad on the U.S. At that time he was a prime candidate for Obama's get acquainted with a drone program. Obama was going to do whatever suited his purposes. Kill him or try to make him a hero---whatever fit for Obama. As far as Eric Holder's take on the legality of it is hilarious. Do you actually think that the Attorney General has one iota of integrity left after all he has done? http://video.foxnews...k#sp=show-clips There are a lot of issues with the way this went down, but this isn't one of them. Reason being is simple, when you are held captive against a brutal force, the willingness of the prisoner to say anything in order from his possible perception to stay alive is quite understandable. So what he said during this time period, I'd certainly take that into consideration. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted June 9, 2014 Share Posted June 9, 2014 I think the point that many are either willfully not wanting to acknowledge or simply just ignoring is, at what cost? Would you have traded Khalid Sheikh Mohammed for this soldier? Would that mantra still apply if the bid was this high? Also, would any prisoner have the same value? I know this is an extreme hypothetical, but it applies, would a sitting US senator have the same value as a soldier who possibly deserted? So the question is Do we bring back any soldier at any cost? There are a lot of issues with the way this went down, but this isn't one of them. Reason being is simple, when you are held captive against a brutal force, the willingness of the prisoner to say anything in order from his possible perception to stay alive is quite understandable. So what he said during this time period, I'd certainly take that into consideration. My point is that Obama was going to call him whatever he wanted to in order for Bergdahl to fit Obama's purpose. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birdog1960 Posted June 9, 2014 Share Posted June 9, 2014 My point is that Obama was going to call him whatever he wanted to in order for Bergdahl to fit Obama's purpose. and my point, that everyone seems hell bent on ignoring, is that this might not have been a trade at all. the calculus might well have included the fact that the afghani prisoners release might have been preordained due to the legal aspects associated with the war ending. if that's the case,an american prisoner was returned at no actual cost. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magox Posted June 9, 2014 Share Posted June 9, 2014 and my point, that everyone seems hell bent on ignoring, is that this might not have been a trade at all. the calculus might well have included the fact that the afghani prisoners release might have been preordained due to the legal aspects associated with the war ending. if that's the case,an american prisoner was returned at no actual cost. Could you please address the question I posed, I'd be interested in hearing your response. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birdog1960 Posted June 9, 2014 Share Posted June 9, 2014 (edited) Could you please address the question I posed, I'd be interested in hearing your response. i think the rank or status of the person left shouldn't be a consideration. in this case it appears it wasn't. the administration must have known his service record and that didn't dissuade them. the appropriate "cost" of the release is relative to the situation (and i suspect other administrations might have weighed this soldiers service record heavily against him). ignoring that, different costs would still likely be appropriate for different situations. there certainly are limits. i can't see an instance, to stretch you example to it's farthest extreme,, where handing over codes involved with national security programs would ever be reasonable. Edited June 9, 2014 by birdog1960 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keepthefaith Posted June 9, 2014 Share Posted June 9, 2014 and my point, that everyone seems hell bent on ignoring, is that this might not have been a trade at all. the calculus might well have included the fact that the afghani prisoners release might have been preordained due to the legal aspects associated with the war ending. if that's the case,an american prisoner was returned at no actual cost. Could be so why not go to Congress and explain this in the required notice that should have been given? If these Afghan war criminals are such bad guys and we can't legally hold them after the war there is over, why not have them turned over to Afghan authorities with the promise for them to be tried and jailed in Afghanistan and not as a part of this deal? Seriously Does Obama plan to just let all these criminals go when they could be tried for their crimes somewhere? I may be making a terrible assumption here that the Afghan leadership wants to punish these people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted June 9, 2014 Share Posted June 9, 2014 and my point, that everyone seems hell bent on ignoring, is that this might not have been a trade at all. the calculus might well have included the fact that the afghani prisoners release might have been preordained due to the legal aspects associated with the war ending. if that's the case,an american prisoner was returned at no actual cost. Obama could shoot your grandmother in the head, and you'd argue that he was just demonstrating the need for stricter gun laws. Obama's rabid fanboys are worse than Bush's. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted June 9, 2014 Author Share Posted June 9, 2014 Obama's rabid fanboys are worse than Bush's. Of course Bush's most rabid fanboy would say that! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted June 9, 2014 Share Posted June 9, 2014 Of course Bush's most rabid fanboy would say that! Please point out where Bush's rabid fanboy said that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magox Posted June 9, 2014 Share Posted June 9, 2014 (edited) i think the rank or status of the person left shouldn't be a consideration. in this case it appears it wasn't. the administration must have known his service record and that didn't dissuade them. the appropriate "cost" of the release is relative to the situation (and i suspect other administrations might have weighed this soldiers service record heavily against him). ignoring that, different costs would still likely be appropriate for different situations. there certainly are limits. i can't see an instance, to stretch you example to it's farthest extreme,, where handing over codes involved with national security programs would ever be reasonable. At least you acknowledge that cost should be a consideration. Good, most of the lemmings I talk to simply either mindlessly repeat the mantra "leave no man behind" whatever the cost, or skirt the issue by deflecting and creating manufactured straw man's. Since you do acknowledge that there is a cost to be considered, will you now also acknowledge that these Taliban/Al Haqqani men are very bad people? Assuming you do recognize this fact, then shouldn't this at the very least have been discussed with the Senate Intelligence community? The idea that they would have leaked this to the press is ridiculous, so please don't respond with that one, considering they were briefed moments before going after Bin Laden. Obama's rabid fanboys are worse than Bush's. You should see the lemmings I smack around on a daily basis on the political blogs? Edited June 9, 2014 by Magox Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts