PDA

View Full Version : Obama's Foreign Policy Sell-out



Cow Poke
06-02-2014, 06:31 AM
Obama has negotiated with terrorists, possibly breaking US Law that prohibits such action without 30 day prior notice to Congress.

He has traded "The Gitmo Five" for the release of Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl.

There are good reasons why the Taliban has long wanted the five freed from Gitmo. All five are among the Taliban’s top commanders in U.S. custody and are still revered in jihadist circles.

Two of the five have been wanted by the UN for war crimes. And because of their prowess, Joint Task Force-Guantanamo (JTF-GTMO) deemed all five of them “high” risks to the U.S. and its allies.

The Obama administration wants to convince the Taliban to abandon its longstanding alliance with al Qaeda. But these men contributed to the formation of that relationship in the first place. All five had close ties to al Qaeda well before the 9/11 attacks. Therefore, it is difficult to see how their freedom would help the Obama administration achieve one of its principal goals for the hoped-for talks.

What makes this even more interesting is Bergdahl's own story:

He deployed to Afghanistan in 2009 full of idealistic conviction that he and his comrades could push back the Taliban and improve life in the long-subjugated country.

But hopefulness soon gave way to despair after his unit began to take casualties and he saw how US troops treated the Afghans they were supposed to be saving.

"These people need help, yet what they get is the most conceited country in the world telling them that they are nothing and that they are stupid," he wrote in an email to his parents on June 27, 2009.

Three days later, according to Rolling Stone, the 23-year-old soldier simply walked off his base in Patika province, carrying a knife, his diary and a small camera.

He was captured almost immediately and - despite a frantic search by US troops, drones and helicopters - smuggled into Pakistan by Taliban fighters.

A Pakistani militant commander told AFP that Sgt Bergdahl engaged with his captors, teaching them how to play badminton and inviting them to celebrate Easter and Christmas with them.

He also reportedly grew fond of kawa, an Afghan green tea, helped with the cooking and became fluent in the Afghan languages of Pashto and Dari.

The Taliban now knows that the US will not only negotiate with terrorists, but that they can gain the release of their Gitmo prisoners by capturing and bargaining with US captives.

But HAVE NO FEAR, for none other than SUSAN RICE assures us that all is well:


National Security Adviser Susan Rice told CNN’s “State of the Union” on Sunday that Qatar provided “a series of very specific assurances” that the detainees would be closely monitored.

Rice said President Obama participated in the negotiations.

“President Obama spoke to the emir of Qatar on Tuesday, when this looked like it was a real possibility,” Rice said.

One Bad Pig
06-02-2014, 07:45 AM
And now the deserter from a war zone will get a hero's welcome. Yay.

Cow Poke
06-02-2014, 07:53 AM
And now the deserter from a war zone will get a hero's welcome. Yay.

I'm a little hesitant to call him a deserter, but it's sure looking like that.

KingsGambit
06-02-2014, 08:07 AM
According to this, the concept of negotiation with terrorists is not actually all that novel, though the release of terrorists is. Politifact gives several examples, including Thomas Jefferson and the Barbary Pirates, Iran-Contra, and George W. Bush negotiating with Iran/North Korea.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2014/jun/01/ted-cruz/ted-cruz-us-policy-has-changed-now-we-make-deals-t/

Cow Poke
06-02-2014, 08:22 AM
According to this, the concept of negotiation with terrorists is not actually all that novel, though the release of terrorists is.

But that's the whole point.. and the State Department has always danced around "negotiating" as for example, nothing wrong with giving a terrorist a drink of water in exchange for info, or those kinds of tradeoffs.... or even the exchange of spies we've had with other governments... (like kind)

But, yeah, FREEING TERRORISTS of this sort is chilling. ONE (alleged) deserter for FIVE TOP ENEMY combatants?

KingsGambit
06-02-2014, 08:26 AM
But that's the whole point.. and the State Department has always danced around "negotiating" as for example, nothing wrong with giving a terrorist a drink of water in exchange for info, or those kinds of tradeoffs.... or even the exchange of spies we've had with other governments... (like kind)

But, yeah, FREEING TERRORISTS of this sort is chilling. ONE (alleged) deserter for FIVE TOP ENEMY combatants?

I heard that they released them to Qatar. Are they just going to let them go there or are they going to prison there?

Cow Poke
06-02-2014, 08:28 AM
I heard that they released them to Qatar. Are they just going to let them go there or are they going to prison there?

They are going to be under the watchful eye of the Qatar government -- Obama supposedly negotiated that himself. I suspect they will be there a few weeks, then, GOSH GOLLY, they ESCAPED!!!!!

Sparko
06-02-2014, 08:56 AM
His fellow soldiers that were stationed with him think he was a deserter...

http://www.cnn.com/2014/06/01/us/bergdahl-deserter-or-hero/

"I was pissed off then and I am even more so now with everything going on," said former Sgt. Matt Vierkant, a member of Bergdahl's platoon when he went missing on June 30, 2009. "Bowe Bergdahl deserted during a time of war and his fellow Americans lost their lives searching for him."
...

Former Pfc. Jose Baggett, 27, of Chicago, was also in Blackfoot Company, and said he was close to two men "killed because of his (Bergdahl's) actions."

"He walked off," Baggett told CNN. "He left his guard post. Nobody knows if he defected or he's a traitor or he was kidnapped. What I do know is he was there to protect us and instead he decided to defer from America and go and do his own thing. I don't know why he decided to do that, but we spend so much of our resources and some of those resources were soldiers' lives."

Cow Poke
06-02-2014, 09:05 AM
His fellow soldiers that were stationed with him think he was a deserter...

http://www.cnn.com/2014/06/01/us/bergdahl-deserter-or-hero/

"I was pissed off then and I am even more so now with everything going on," said former Sgt. Matt Vierkant, a member of Bergdahl's platoon when he went missing on June 30, 2009. "Bowe Bergdahl deserted during a time of war and his fellow Americans lost their lives searching for him."
...

Former Pfc. Jose Baggett, 27, of Chicago, was also in Blackfoot Company, and said he was close to two men "killed because of his (Bergdahl's) actions."

"He walked off," Baggett told CNN. "He left his guard post. Nobody knows if he defected or he's a traitor or he was kidnapped. What I do know is he was there to protect us and instead he decided to defer from America and go and do his own thing. I don't know why he decided to do that, but we spend so much of our resources and some of those resources were soldiers' lives."

Yeah, I've been finding similar stuff since that post.

All I can say is ...

WOW

rogue06
06-02-2014, 10:32 AM
His fellow soldiers that were stationed with him think he was a deserter...

http://www.cnn.com/2014/06/01/us/bergdahl-deserter-or-hero/

"I was pissed off then and I am even more so now with everything going on," said former Sgt. Matt Vierkant, a member of Bergdahl's platoon when he went missing on June 30, 2009. "Bowe Bergdahl deserted during a time of war and his fellow Americans lost their lives searching for him."
...

Former Pfc. Jose Baggett, 27, of Chicago, was also in Blackfoot Company, and said he was close to two men "killed because of his (Bergdahl's) actions."

"He walked off," Baggett told CNN. "He left his guard post. Nobody knows if he defected or he's a traitor or he was kidnapped. What I do know is he was there to protect us and instead he decided to defer from America and go and do his own thing. I don't know why he decided to do that, but we spend so much of our resources and some of those resources were soldiers' lives."
When you factor in his last e-mail to his parents sent the day before his disappearance and capture the conclusion that he was a deserter is reasonable:


"In the US army you are cut down for being honest... but if you are a conceited brown nosing [slang for excrement] bag you will be allowed to do what ever you want, and you will be handed your higher rank... The system is wrong. I am ashamed to be an american. And the title of US soldier is just the lie of fools...I am sorry for everything here. These people need help, yet what they get is the most conceited country in the world telling them that they are nothing and that they are stupid, that they have no idea how to live. We don't even care when we hear each other talk about running their children down in the dirt streets with our armored trucks... We make fun of them in front of their faces, and laugh at them for not understanding we are insulting them...I am sorry for everything. The horror that is america is disgusting...There are a few more boxes coming to you guys. Feel free to open them, and use them."

Source (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bowe_Bergdahl#Last_e-mail_to_parents)

[*Term edited by rogue06*]

rogue06
06-02-2014, 10:41 AM
OTOH, there appears to be some evidence that while he was disgruntled he wasn't AWOL or deserting


A transcript of radio intercepts, publicly released through Wikileaks, indicates that Bergdahl, then 23, was captured while sitting in a makeshift latrine.

"We were attacking the post he was sitting," according to a radio intercept of a conversation among insurgents. "He had no gun with him. ... They have all (the) Americans, ANA (Afghan National Army), helicopters, the planes are looking for him. Can you guys make a video of him and announce it all over Afghanistan that we have one of the Americans?"


Source (http://www.cbsnews.com/news/is-sgt-bowe-bergdahl-a-hero-or-a-deserter/)

Cow Poke
06-02-2014, 11:00 AM
OTOH, there appears to be some evidence that while he was disgruntled he wasn't AWOL or deserting


A transcript of radio intercepts, publicly released through Wikileaks, indicates that Bergdahl, then 23, was captured while sitting in a makeshift latrine.

"We were attacking the post he was sitting," according to a radio intercept of a conversation among insurgents. "He had no gun with him. ... They have all (the) Americans, ANA (Afghan National Army), helicopters, the planes are looking for him. Can you guys make a video of him and announce it all over Afghanistan that we have one of the Americans?"


Source (http://www.cbsnews.com/news/is-sgt-bowe-bergdahl-a-hero-or-a-deserter/)


I don't see how that's "OTOH".... it doesn't go so much toward intent as it does circumstances.

Teallaura
06-02-2014, 11:19 AM
I don't see how that's "OTOH".... it doesn't go so much toward intent as it does circumstances.
Around the corner relieving himself isn't the same thing as down the street, leaving without permission.

I'm of the opinion that it's best to reserve judgment until we actually know what exactly happened. People get mad and say lots of things - doesn't mean they also walk off their post. Does mean they might - but not that they did.

Odd to me is that he didn't have a weapon with him - why leave it behind if you are deserting - or going for a :potty: break?

Cow Poke
06-02-2014, 11:26 AM
Around the corner relieving himself isn't the same thing as down the street, leaving without permission.

If that's what he was doing, yes, but his buddies sure didn't seem to think that was what he was doing.


I'm of the opinion that it's best to reserve judgment until we actually know what exactly happened. People get mad and say lots of things - doesn't mean they also walk off their post. Does mean they might - but not that they did.

Which is why I expressed my reservation.


Odd to me is that he didn't have a weapon with him - why leave it behind if you are deserting - or going for a :potty: break?

Yeah, but it doesn't sound like he was playing with all the cards in the box. For cryin out loud, he was from IDAHO!

Zymologist
06-02-2014, 11:50 AM
Yeah, but it doesn't sound like he was playing with all the cards in the box. For cryin out loud, he was from IDAHO!

I find your anti-Idaho bigotry offensive. I demand a retraction.

Also, I grew up in Idaho.

Cow Poke
06-02-2014, 11:52 AM
I find your anti-Idaho bigotry offensive. I demand a retraction.

I hereby fully and unconditionally retract. :sad:


Also, I grew up in Idaho.

One of our best vacations was in a cabin (a HUGE cabin) in Idaho. (on the way from Salt Lake City)

Zymologist
06-02-2014, 11:53 AM
I hereby fully and unconditionally retract. :sad:



One of our best vacations was in a cabin (a HUGE cabin) in Idaho. (on the way from Salt Lake City)

Just to be clear, my comment was meant in jest. I should've said, "I resemble that remark!"

Cow Poke
06-02-2014, 12:29 PM
Just to be clear, my comment was meant in jest. I should've said, "I resemble that remark!"

I took it as such. :smile: Nevertheless, I hungded my head in shame for casting aspersions on all the good folks of Idaho. :smile:

rogue06
06-02-2014, 12:34 PM
I took it as such. :smile: Nevertheless, I hungded my head in shame for casting aspersions on all the good folks of Idaho. :smile:
More like you were afeared that they'd cut you off and you couldn't make any more baked tater soup.

Zymologist
06-02-2014, 01:07 PM
all the good folks of Idaho.

Why, there's at least a hundred of us!

Edit: I'm actually a Montanan now, but we're pretty much the same.

seer
06-02-2014, 01:21 PM
I think there is a lot more than meets the eye. Why on earth would you have soldiers sign nondisclosure agreements?

http://www.cnn.com/2014/06/01/us/bergdahl-deserter-or-hero/


Many of Bergdahl's fellow troops -- from the seven or so who knew him best in his squad to the larger group that made up the 1st Battalion, 501st Infantry Regiment, 4th Brigade Combat Team, 25th Infantry Division -- told CNN that they signed nondisclosure agreements agreeing to never share any information about Bergdahl's disappearance and the efforts to recapture him. Some were willing to dismiss that document in hopes that the truth would come out about a soldier who they now fear is being hailed as a hero, while the men who lost their lives looking for him are ignored.

Cow Poke
06-02-2014, 01:22 PM
The AMAZING thing is that Obama sees this is a huge foreign policy success.

seer
06-02-2014, 01:49 PM
The AMAZING thing is that Obama sees this is a huge foreign policy success.

You know, this may blow up in his face.

Cow Poke
06-02-2014, 01:53 PM
You know, this may blow up in his face.

I don't know, the MSM may still bail him out, but even lil ol' Jay Carney has jumped ship. If the media decides to focus on Hillary, to help set her up as Queen, it's possible they may leave Obama hangin' out to dry.

Teallaura
06-03-2014, 06:15 AM
You know, this may blow up in his face.
May, nothing - first time a family gets on TV talking about the death of their loved one kidnapped because every bunch of loons thinks it's Open Season on Americans there will be a firestorm.

Teallaura
06-03-2014, 06:16 AM
Also, Idaho is close to Canada and it SNOWS there. It must necessarily be evil.

:jaltus:

One Bad Pig
06-03-2014, 06:18 AM
Also, Idaho is close to Canada and it SNOWS there. It must necessarily be evil.

:jaltus:
:noid: Didn't it snow in Alabamistan this past winter?

Teallaura
06-03-2014, 06:22 AM
:noid: Didn't it snow in Alabamistan this past winter?
Yes, it was an attack by evil mutant weather. :rant: It's not SUPPOSED to snow here!!!!!

rogue06
06-03-2014, 02:56 PM
When you factor in his last e-mail to his parents sent the day before his disappearance and capture the conclusion that he was a deserter is reasonable:


"In the US army you are cut down for being honest... but if you are a conceited brown nosing [slang for excrement] bag you will be allowed to do what ever you want, and you will be handed your higher rank... The system is wrong. I am ashamed to be an american. And the title of US soldier is just the lie of fools...I am sorry for everything here. These people need help, yet what they get is the most conceited country in the world telling them that they are nothing and that they are stupid, that they have no idea how to live. We don't even care when we hear each other talk about running their children down in the dirt streets with our armored trucks... We make fun of them in front of their faces, and laugh at them for not understanding we are insulting them...I am sorry for everything. The horror that is america is disgusting...There are a few more boxes coming to you guys. Feel free to open them, and use them."

Source (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bowe_Bergdahl#Last_e-mail_to_parents)

[*Term edited by rogue06*]

As more details surface it appears that Bergdahl wasn't worth "rescuing" and that he did indeed desert.

From the New York Times we learn that he left a letter for his comrades stating that he was leaving to start a "new life":


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.


Source (http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/03/us/us-soldier-srgt-bowe-bergdahl-of-idaho-pow-vanished-angered-his-unit.html?_r=0)


This seems consistent with reports from soldiers that served with him that Bergdahl was “acting a little strange, telling people he wanted to ‘walk the earth’ and kept a little journal talking about how he was meant for better things.”


Further, and far more disturbing is, according to former Army Sergeant Evan Buetow, the team leader the night Bergdahl initially vanished they intercepted radio chatter indicated Bergdahl was seeking talks with the Taliban when he first walked away:


Within days of his disappearance, says Buetow, teams monitoring radio chatter and cell phone communications intercepted an alarming message: The American is in Yahya Khel (a village two miles away). He's looking for someone who speaks English so he can talk to the Taliban.

"I heard it straight from the interpreter's lips as he heard it over the radio," said Buetow. "There's a lot more to this story than a soldier walking away."


Source (http://thelead.blogs.cnn.com/2014/06/03/team-leader-bowe-bergdahl-wanted-to-talk-to-taliban/)


Buetow also cited his concern that Bergdahl might have even began assisting the Taliban with their attacks on soldiers searching for him


"Following his disappearance, IEDs started going off directly under the trucks. They were getting perfect hits every time. Their ambushes were very calculated, very methodical," said Buetow.

It was "very suspicious," says Buetow, noting that Bergdahl knew sensitive information about the movement of U.S. trucks, the weaponry on those trucks, and how soldiers would react to attacks.

"We were incredibly worried" that Bergdahl was giving up information, either under torture, or otherwise, says Buetow.


That his suspicions may be true were apparently verified by others a few years ago


A captured American soldier is training Taliban fighters bomb-making and ambush skills, according to one of his captors and Afghan intelligence officials.

Private Bowe Bergdahl disappeared in June 2009 while based in eastern Afghanistan and is thought to be the only U.S. serviceman in captivity.

The 24-year-old has converted to Islam and now has the Muslim name Abdullah, one of his captors told The Sunday Times.

A Taliban deputy district commander in Paktika, who called himself Haji Nadeem, told the newspaper that Bergdahl taught him how to dismantle a mobile phone and turn it into a remote control for a roadside bomb.

Nadeem claimed he also received basic ambush training from the U.S. soldier.

'Most of the skills he taught us we already knew,' he said. 'Some of my comrades think he's pretending to be a Muslim to save himself so they wouldn't behead him.'

Afghan intelligence officials also believe that Bergdahl is 'cooperating with the Taliban' and is acting as adviser to fighters at a base in the tribal area of Pakistan.


Source (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1305184/Bowe-Bergdahl-Taliban-claim-captured-U-S-solider-teaching-fighters-bomb-making-skills.html)


All of this might explain why the Pentagon never officially listed Bergdahl as a Prisoner of War or why (after already losing fourteen men looking for him (http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2014/06/col-david-hunt-we-lost-14-soldiers-searching-for-deserter-bergdahl-video/)) that they wouldn't attempt any rescue operation for him although they knew where he was.


The Pentagon on several occasions had ground-level intelligence on where ArmySgt. Bowe Bergdahl was being held captive at various times — down to how many gunmen were guarding him — but special operations commanders repeatedly shelved rescue missions because they didn’t want to risk casualties for a man they believed to be a “deserter,” sources familiar with the mission plans said.

Source (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/jun/2/pentagon-knew-berghdahls-whereabouts-but-didnt-ris/)


It might also explain why Gen. Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff said that "it's premature" to think there will be no charges against Bergdahl and if any misconduct is found, Army leaders "will not look away" (although he emphasized that Bergdahl is to be presumed innocent as the investigation takes place).

All of this comes just days after Susan Rice, Obama's national security adviser said Bergdahl served with "honor and distinction" and Obama himself celebrated the announcement of the prisoner swap in a White House Rose Garden press statement.

Cow Poke
06-03-2014, 02:59 PM
All of this comes just days after Susan Rice, Obama's national security adviser said Bergdahl served with "honor and distinction" and Obama himself celebrated the announcement of the prisoner swap in a White House Rose Garden press statement.

I thought I saw, just the other day, Susan Rice referring to him as a Marine... but I can't seem to find where I saw that.


But what you said... YESH!

KingsGambit
06-03-2014, 04:00 PM
One author I read today argues that the US would soon have to let all those detainees go anyway because of the plan to withdraw from Afghanistan by 2016. I will say that I don't buy his argument that there was a 5% chance that they would reoffend. An article I read on Politifact today backed John McCain's statement that these guys were the "worst of the worst".

http://thinkprogress.org/world/2014/06/02/3443719/the-case-for-negotiating-for-bergdahls-release/

Jedidiah
06-03-2014, 06:42 PM
May, nothing - first time a family gets on TV talking about the death of their loved one kidnapped because every bunch of loons thinks it's Open Season on Americans there will be a firestorm.

Nah, it will be another occasion of "Much Ado About Nothing." Or more likely much ado amounting to nothing.

JimL
06-03-2014, 10:06 PM
But that's the whole point.. and the State Department has always danced around "negotiating" as for example, nothing wrong with giving a terrorist a drink of water in exchange for info, or those kinds of tradeoffs.... or even the exchange of spies we've had with other governments... (like kind)

But, yeah, FREEING TERRORISTS of this sort is chilling. ONE (alleged) deserter for FIVE TOP ENEMY combatants?

Legally they would have to release them in 2014 anyway, at the end of the war. So this deal kills two birds with one stone. We get the release of Bergdahl, and the prisoners are held, at least on paper, for another year in Qatar instead of in Gitmo. And btw, we, and every other warring nation, "negotiates with the enemy". Its another benghazi.

Epoetker
06-04-2014, 12:48 AM
Legally they would have to release them in 2014 anyway, at the end of the war. So this deal kills two birds with one stone.

http://imgur.com/OdTYZ0o.jpg

Cow Poke
06-04-2014, 04:06 AM
Legally they would have to release them in 2014 anyway, at the end of the war.

Just because Obama is turning tail and running does NOT mean the war is over. And PLEASE cite the legal requirement for the release of the terrorists.


So this deal kills two birds with one stone.

It kills, yes.


We get the release of Bergdahl,

No doubt you're proud of him.


and the prisoners are held, at least on paper, for another year in Qatar instead of in Gitmo. And btw, we, and every other warring nation, "negotiates with the enemy". Its another benghazi.

This doesn't even warrant a response.

Cow Poke
06-04-2014, 07:45 AM
It's quite possible that, ONCE AGAIN, Obama got SNOOKERED because of his incredibly inept foreign policy "experience".


The Haqqani terrorist group kept Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl in relatively good health the past five years because it was always its goal to trade him, U.S. officials said Tuesday.

But the last “proof-of-life” video the Haqqani network recorded showed Sgt. Bergdahl looking haggard and perhaps bruised. One U.S. official said intelligence analysts believe the soldier may have been made to look ill as a ploy to convince Washington he was in failing health and needed to be freed promptly. The video was produced in December and obtained by U.S. military in January.

SEE ALSO: SEE the moment Bowe Bergdahl is handed over to U.S. special forces by Taliban

Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel cited Sgt. Bergdahl’s health as a prime factor in trading five senior Taliban commanders for his release.

Before that, officials said Sgt. Bergdahl was fed, clothed in local garb and allowed to exercise, and he wrote at least one letter home to Hailey, Idaho.

The U.S.-designated terrorist group wanted the release of senior Taliban fighters who one day could help bring down the new democracy in Afghanistan, so the sergeant’s health was important, a U.S. official said. The official and other sources for this report requested anonymity in order to discuss sensitive matters freely.

Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/jun/3/taliban-used-haggard-look-of-pow-bergdahl-in-last-/#ixzz33gKcAA4J
Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter

rogue06
06-04-2014, 08:49 AM
Legally they would have to release them in 2014 anyway, at the end of the war. So this deal kills two birds with one stone. We get the release of Bergdahl, and the prisoners are held, at least on paper, for another year in Qatar instead of in Gitmo. And btw, we, and every other warring nation, "negotiates with the enemy". Its another benghazi.
This isn't even a claim that the White House is making in defense of the deal.

Interestingly they (the White House) are claiming that Bergdahl is being "Swift Boated" (http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/report-white-house-accuses-soldiers-who-served-bergdahl-swift-boating-him_794307.html) appearing to not understand that this appears to be a case where everyone who served with him is denouncing what he did. There is no disagreement.

Van Jones[1] is whining about what he calls the Benghazi-zation of Bergdahl by Republicans (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2014/06/03/van_jones_the_benghazi-azation_of_bergdahl_by_republicans.html). He appears to be overlooking the fact that these attacks are being spearheaded by fellow soldiers, the ones who served with Bergdahl and that even a military investigation supports the assertion that he was a deserter and not, as National Security Adviser Susan Rice proclaimed, "taken in battle" or "served honorably."

And it should be noted that Democrats, even including some which initially voiced support of the swap like Sen. Claire McCaskill who had spoke of how "very proud" she was of it, are now backing away from it. Sen. Jon Tester (D - MT) noted that "I do think getting our boys back home, that's a good quality. I do have some issues about whether deserted or not."

Well, with one notable exception. Majority Leader Harry Reid said that, "I'm glad to get rid of these five people," and made it clear that he would have happily released them earlier but was stymied by those nasty Republicans. I would agree with Reid if we truly had gotten rid of them rather than freed them so they can continue to wage jihad and slaughter innocent people.



[B]1. Obama's former "Green Czar" who resigned in disgrace after it was learned that he was a self-professed communist and 9/11 Truther (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/09/13/how_could_obama_have_hired_van_jones_98293.html) who's career the White House said they had followed closely.

rogue06
06-04-2014, 08:55 AM
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-0qB05TnKE3s/U4toa3x8erI/AAAAAAAAKio/xHBXlgxFIZg/s1600/Another-Big-Effing-Deal.jpg

Cow Poke
06-04-2014, 08:58 AM
Van Jones[1] is whining about what he calls the Benghazi-zation of Bergdahl by Republicans (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2014/06/03/van_jones_the_benghazi-azation_of_bergdahl_by_republicans.html).

Yup, and who's the chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee*? Why, it's DEMOCRAT Diane Feinstein! And what does SHE say? (bolding mine)
Two top lawmakers on the Senate Intelligence Committee said Tuesday that the Obama administration broke the law by not informing Congress before the prisoner exchange that resulted in Army Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl’s release.

Democratic Sen. Dianne Feinstein and Republican Sen. Saxby Chambliss said the administration violated the law by failing to address serious concerns they had about the deal to swap Bergdahl for five Taliban detainees. Chambliss said he had not had a conversation with the White House about a possible exchange for at least 18 months.

"It comes to us with some surprise and dismay that the transfers went ahead with no consultation, totally not following law," Feinstein told reporters following a closed door meeting. "And in an issue with this kind of concern to a committee that bears the oversight responsibility, I think you can see that we're very dismayed about it ."







*yeah, I know -- "Senate" and "Intelligence" should not be in the same phrase, let alone the same sentence. :shrug:

Sparko
06-04-2014, 09:09 AM
I am wondering how Obama got the US military to go along with this idiotic swap? especially if he bypassed the law to do it.

Cow Poke
06-04-2014, 09:11 AM
I am wondering how Obama got the US military to go along with this idiotic swap? especially if he bypassed the law to do it.

Because the vast majority of the Military will do what the Commander in Chief directs, regardless of politics or intent.

Sparko
06-04-2014, 09:25 AM
Because the vast majority of the Military will do what the Commander in Chief directs, regardless of politics or intent.

But he wouldnt be dealing with the mass majority, just the top military leaders, and they answer to congress too. Seems like they would refuse an illegal order.

Makes you wonder if congress did know about it, or if there is something else going on.

Maybe they bled the taliban guys dry and wanted to get their hands on this traitor to see what he has learned in 5 years? Maybe he was not a traitor but actually some CIA spy sent to infiltrate the taliban? (yea I know I watch too much tv)

Cow Poke
06-04-2014, 09:35 AM
But he wouldnt be dealing with the mass majority, just the top military leaders, and they answer to congress too.

I disagree --- the chain of command in the military is quite clear.

594


Seems like they would refuse an illegal order.

It's "bred into" the military "mine is not to question why - mine is but to do and die".


Makes you wonder if congress did know about it, or if there is something else going on.

I think it's just more of Obama's "I have a pen and a cell phone [and I'm gonna do whatever the @!%$!#% I want to do]".


Maybe they bled the taliban guys dry and wanted to get their hands on this traitor to see what he has learned in 5 years? Maybe he was not a traitor but actually some CIA spy sent to infiltrate the taliban? (yea I know I watch too much tv)

I, too, have been trying figure out what there might be that we don't know. This is just so outrageous and stupid it defies reason.

rogue06
06-04-2014, 10:39 AM
From an article in TIME magazine:


But officials in the Pentagon and intelligence communities had successfully fought off release of the five men in the past, officials tell TIME. “This was out of the norm,” says one official familiar with the debate over the dangers of releasing the five Taliban officials. “There was never the conversation.” Obama’s move was an ultimate victory for those at the White House and the State Department who had previously argued the military should “suck it up and salute,” says the official familiar with the debate.


Source (http://time.com/2818827/taliban-bergdahl-pow-release-objections-white-house/)

[*Emphasis added by rogue06*]

Cow Poke
06-04-2014, 11:29 AM
Who, in the Obama Inner Circle, ever wore a uniform of the United States Military?

I think they are totally BANKRUPT with regards to military culture, and nave NO CLUE what it means to...

desert one's post (they think it's like skipping class on Monday after partying all weekend (yeah, I've heard this one a lot lately))
serve with honor and distinction (who of them HAS?)
leave no man behind (this has always been about rescuing our people who were lost in combat -- NOT deserters - and it's been a "fight your way in and GET them" type of thing, not "give them back their top command staff in exchange for somebody who didn't even like us)
exchange of prisoners we have done this AFTER the cessation of hostilities, and NEVER "one guy" for "5 top level commanders" DURING hostilities

I keep hearing that the Obama team expected jubilation -- they thought that the military, in particular, would be THRILLED that "we got their guy back".

The incompetence of this administration seems to know no bounds.

CMD
06-04-2014, 11:36 AM
This is all just a big smear campaign orchestrated by Republicans.


Now, I admit, there are important answers we have to answer here, but Sergeant Bergdahl isn't even out of the hospital yet and already the air waves are being filled mysteriously with former soldiers just trashing the guy. What is going on here? Well, it turns out that there are Republican operatives who are working behind the scenes to get some of those guys on television. This is an orchestrated smear campaign. The implication is that President Obama should have left a U.S. soldier to die, but if he had done that, the same Republicans would be attacking him for doing that, so the whole thing is completely outrageous.

Link (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2014/06/04/van_jones_soldiers_questioning_bergdahl_story_part _of_orchestrated_smear_campaign.html)

Nothing to see here folks. This is just another fabricated "controversy" meant to attack Obama because, I don't know, racism and stuff?

Cow Poke
06-04-2014, 11:45 AM
Legally they would have to release them in 2014 anyway, at the end of the war.

And, again I ask, What legal statute is that?

rogue06
06-04-2014, 12:49 PM
serve with honor and distinction (who of them HAS?)
Many come from a time and culture where merely showing up is rewarded as an accomplishment



I keep hearing that the Obama team expected jubilation -- they thought that the military, in particular, would be THRILLED that "we got their guy back".
I think that this was an important factor in their calculations (aside from making a move to close GITMO). They thought that this would blunt some of the damage they're suffering after the VA scandal that continues to grow (more secret waiting lists exposed at facilities in Illinois, Indiana, Kansas and Missouri (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TaJ1_5Rq7hk))

Epoetker
06-04-2014, 07:28 PM
Nice to see that most of the military grunts are not, in fact, "shutting up and saluting" in this instance. May I expect more focused reaction on behalf of the nation instead of the state in the future?

The kid's father was the biggest scumbag in this case, my guess is he raised him rurally on liberal horror stories about all the EVIL they do behind the scenes, and couldn't really handle the bland reality of a mostly bureaucratic (http://www.johntreed.com/militaryhonor.html) but still generally decent organization that doesn't kill people and wear their faces like in all the stories his father/Hollywood/mother told him (seriously, IIRC one of the questions he asked upon getting deployed was when they were going to do that.)

Judging by his dad's Muslim act, he was probably also trying to see if the Taliban were the hard-core Virtuous Victims as they were most likely painted for him in real life.

Still deserves to see the final penalty for his rank stupidity and radical lack of concern for the consequences of his actions and the welfare of his fellow troops, but it's about 95% certain his dad that planted the ideas and justifications in his head first.

Epoetker
06-04-2014, 07:53 PM
Also, in entirely related news, this is too good not to repost:

http://cdn.makeagif.com/media/6-04-2014/1rLy9h.gif

Betting Obama comes out as gay within the next two months.

rogue06
06-05-2014, 02:02 PM
Some times I can't resist...


http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-OoJrJWUC7ps/U44gLT34-fI/AAAAAAAAKjY/sJs0itHI3ag/s1600/News-Quiz.jpg


I know. I know. Bad rogue. Bad rogue :badboy:

JimL
06-05-2014, 08:48 PM
And, again I ask, What legal statute is that?
Geneva Convention! Even before the U.S signed on to the Geneva Convention prisoners of war were repatriated with their countries at the end of war.

Epoetker
06-05-2014, 08:55 PM
Geneva Convention! Even before the U.S signed on to the Geneva Convention prisoners of war were repatriated with their countries at the end of war.

You don't think these guys qualify for some Nuremburg action?

rogue06
06-05-2014, 09:02 PM
Geneva Convention! Even before the U.S signed on to the Geneva Convention prisoners of war were repatriated with their countries at the end of war.
Exactly which country's military force were they serving in? They are not POWs rather they are the sort of guys that the Geneva Convention allows us to line up against the wall and shoot when captured.

JimL
06-05-2014, 09:16 PM
You don't think these guys qualify for some Nuremburg action?
Actually you know nothing more about these particular guys than you do about any of the other prisoners at gitmo. Btw, Nuremburg was a trial.

JimL
06-05-2014, 09:25 PM
Exactly which country's military force were they serving in? They are not POWs rather they are the sort of guys that the Geneva Convention allows us to line up against the wall and shoot when captured.
They are Afghani Taliban, which is an Afghan military force with whom we are at war in Afghanistan. And no, the Geneva Convention allows no such thing.

JimL
06-05-2014, 09:40 PM
Just for your information, I'm sure you're all aware of this, but this trade, this exact same trade, has been in the works since 2011 at which time Republicans were lauding the deal. The Taliban backed out of the deal because one of the stipulations was that Bergdahl's name be kept secret until the deal was done, but it wasn't, his name was leaked, end of deal. Republicans pols and the GOP echo chamber are all acting as if this is all new to them, when they were all praising the deal back in 2011 and 12. Oh, you didn't know that? Benghazi, Benghazi!

CMD
06-05-2014, 09:47 PM
Even hyper-liberal "Obama's speeches give me tingles in my leg" Chris Matthews is angry at Obama over this debacle.

Leave it to JimL to out-liberal and out-partisan Chris freakin' Matthews.

JimL
06-05-2014, 10:07 PM
Even hyper-liberal "Obama's speeches give me tingles in my leg" Chris Matthews is angry at Obama over this debacle.

Leave it to JimL to out-liberal and out-partisan Chris freakin' Matthews.
All liberals aren't right all of the time you know, just most of the time.

Cow Poke
06-06-2014, 03:39 AM
Geneva Convention! Even before the U.S signed on to the Geneva Convention prisoners of war were repatriated with their countries at the end of war.

In other words, you don't have a clue. :lolo: So, in your mind, when Obama pulls troops from Afghanistan, all the Islamist extremists are going to smile and say, "NOW we can be nice to the world". ONLY in JimmyLand.

Sparko
06-06-2014, 06:55 AM
The Taliban are not part of the Geneva convention. They are not a recognized force. They are terrorists, not a national army. They are not any part of the legitimate Afghani government or military. And as far as I know what we are doing in Afghanistan is not an actual war at all. We are basically training and assisting the Afghanistan government in ridding themselves of these criminals.

So legally they are not "POWs" nor are they subject to the Geneva convention.

Cow Poke
06-06-2014, 08:58 AM
The Taliban are not part of the Geneva convention. They are not a recognized force. They are terrorists, not a national army. They are not any part of the legitimate Afghani government or military. And as far as I know what we are doing in Afghanistan is not an actual war at all. We are basically training and assisting the Afghanistan government in ridding themselves of these criminals.

So legally they are not "POWs" nor are they subject to the Geneva convention.

EGGzackly.

HOWEVER, let's pretend they ARE a party to the Geneva Convention.

If so, Part IV, Section 1, Article 109 would have required them to return Bergdahl because he, supposedly, was "in failing physical condition". Isn't that what the Obama idiots claimed?
Subject to the provisions of the third paragraph of this Article, Parties to the conflict are bound to send back to their own country, regardless of number or rank, seriously wounded and seriously sick prisoners of war, after having cared for them until they are fit to travel, in accordance with the first paragraph of the following Article.

This would NOT have required us to send them five of their top guys. :doh:

Article 110 continues

The following shall be repatriated direct:

1. Incurably wounded and sick whose mental or physical fitness seems to have been gravely diminished.

2. Wounded and sick who, according to medical opinion, are not likely to recover within one year, whose condition requires treatment and whose mental or physical fitness seems to have been gravely diminished.

3. Wounded and sick who have recovered, but whose mental or physical fitness seems to have been gravely and pemmanently diminished.

The following may be accommodated in a neutral country:

1. Wounded and sick whose recovery may be expected within one year of the date of the wound or the beginning of the illness, if treatment in a neutral country might increase the prospects of a more certain and speedy recovery.

2. Prisoners of war whose mental or physical health, according to medical opinion, is seriously threatened by continued captivity, but whose accommodation in a neutral country might remove such a threat.

Further -- The Geneva Convention (to which the Islamist Extremists are NOT parties) does NOT require a "prisoner exchange" -- and the repatriation takes place "after the cessation of hostilities".

So, PLEASE, Jimmy --- try again. What is the legal requirement for us to send the bad guys their TOP FIVE LEADERS during ongoing hostilities?

rogue06
06-06-2014, 09:05 AM
Just for your information, I'm sure you're all aware of this, but this trade, this exact same trade, has been in the works since 2011 at which time Republicans were lauding the deal. The Taliban backed out of the deal because one of the stipulations was that Bergdahl's name be kept secret until the deal was done, but it wasn't, his name was leaked, end of deal. Republicans pols and the GOP echo chamber are all acting as if this is all new to them, when they were all praising the deal back in 2011 and 12. Oh, you didn't know that? Benghazi, Benghazi!
While a swap was in the works FWIU it wasn't for these five guys. They were always considered no deal. And there had been a different trade in the works -- an exchange for cash but Obama quashed this because he wanted a prisoner swap and it looks like for these five.

Cow Poke
06-06-2014, 09:20 AM
All liberals aren't right.

That works!

rogue06
06-06-2014, 09:46 AM
So, PLEASE, Jimmy --- try again. What is the legal requirement for us to send the bad guys their TOP FIVE LEADERS during ongoing hostilities?
It would be like if we captured Himmler, Goering, Goebbels, Bormann and Heydrich and then swapped them for a deserter in the middle of WWII

Zymologist
06-06-2014, 09:58 AM
All liberals aren't right all of the time you know, just most of the time.

Well, except for Obama, right? I mean, he does everything right.

RumTumTugger
06-06-2014, 10:44 AM
This is all just a big smear campaign orchestrated by Republicans.



Nothing to see here folks. This is just another fabricated "controversy" meant to attack Obama because, I don't know, racism and stuff?
you forgot the sarcasm tags that probably don't work yet:wink:

lilpixieofterror
06-06-2014, 06:44 PM
Geneva Convention! Even before the U.S signed on to the Geneva Convention prisoners of war were repatriated with their countries at the end of war.

You know Jimmy, just when I think you can't say anything any dumber, you go and surprise me and say something even dumber. For starters, the Taliban has never signed the Geneva Convention and they have violated it so much, they likely would have been rounded up and shot on site if the invasion had taken place decades earlier.


Actually you know nothing more about these particular guys than you do about any of the other prisoners at gitmo. Btw, Nuremburg was a trial.

And considering they are not part of any recognized government and have violated about every provision of the Geneva Convention anyway, being put on trial for war crimes would likely be the least of their concerns. Really Jimmy, stop talking about stuff you clearly know nothing about.


They are Afghani Taliban, which is an Afghan military force with whom we are at war in Afghanistan. And no, the Geneva Convention allows no such thing.

The Taliban is not part of the current Afghan government Jimmy, but were the post de facto dictators before the US came in. Even ignoring that, you seem to know nothing about the Geneva Convention. Stealing planes and using them to kill lots of people is against the Geneva Convention (IE I doubt they would be 'approved weapons'). Not wearing a military uniform during combat is also against the Geneva Convention. They don't avoid unnecessary suffering since they specifically target and kill lots of civilians and I somehow doubt planes full of people would fall into that either. Do you want me to go on about all the things the Taliban has done that is in direct violation of the Geneva Convention? In reality, if they were caught doing this stuff a century ago, it is likely they would have been rounded up and shot. However; the fact you'll defend such people that have no issue with killing any westerner is only further evidence that you don't have the slightest clue of what really is going on.


Just for your information, I'm sure you're all aware of this, but this trade, this exact same trade, has been in the works since 2011 at which time Republicans were lauding the deal. The Taliban backed out of the deal because one of the stipulations was that Bergdahl's name be kept secret until the deal was done, but it wasn't, his name was leaked, end of deal. Republicans pols and the GOP echo chamber are all acting as if this is all new to them, when they were all praising the deal back in 2011 and 12. Oh, you didn't know that? Benghazi, Benghazi!

No Jimmy you are totally clueless of the international laws of war as you have shown above and still haven't got the slightest clue what you're talking about. Do yourself a favor and stop talking about military matters because your understanding of military law is dismal to non existent.

lilpixieofterror
06-06-2014, 06:46 PM
All liberals aren't right all of the time you know, just most of the time.

You clearly are not, but that doesn't seem to stop you from opening your mouth and vomiting forth ignorance.

lilpixieofterror
06-06-2014, 06:48 PM
In other words, you don't have a clue. :lolo: So, in your mind, when Obama pulls troops from Afghanistan, all the Islamist extremists are going to smile and say, "NOW we can be nice to the world". ONLY in JimmyLand.

I don't think Jimmy is aware of their mind set. They had no issue with taking planes full of people being using them as bombs to kill buildings full of people and were even dancing in the street over the entire event. They have declared a Holy War upon the West and will not stop until their objectives are met or they are all gone. I don't think Jimmy and Co really understand that.

JimL
06-06-2014, 08:55 PM
The Taliban are not part of the Geneva convention. They are not a recognized force. They are terrorists, not a national army. They are not any part of the legitimate Afghani government or military. And as far as I know what we are doing in Afghanistan is not an actual war at all. We are basically training and assisting the Afghanistan government in ridding themselves of these criminals.

So legally they are not "POWs" nor are they subject to the Geneva convention.
Just because we ousted them from power in Afghanistan, whether you believe it justified or not, doesn't all of sudden deligitimize their military status. We ousted them from power, but they, and we, are still fighting the same war with each other, and in a war, when you take prisoners, they are prisoners of war.

JimL
06-06-2014, 09:22 PM
EGGzackly.

HOWEVER, let's pretend they ARE a party to the Geneva Convention.

If so, Part IV, Section 1, Article 109 would have required them to return Bergdahl because he, supposedly, was "in failing physical condition". Isn't that what the Obama idiots claimed?
Subject to the provisions of the third paragraph of this Article, Parties to the conflict are bound to send back to their own country, regardless of number or rank, seriously wounded and seriously sick prisoners of war, after having cared for them until they are fit to travel, in accordance with the first paragraph of the following Article.

This would NOT have required us to send them five of their top guys. :doh:

Article 110 continues

The following shall be repatriated direct:

1. Incurably wounded and sick whose mental or physical fitness seems to have been gravely diminished.

2. Wounded and sick who, according to medical opinion, are not likely to recover within one year, whose condition requires treatment and whose mental or physical fitness seems to have been gravely diminished.

3. Wounded and sick who have recovered, but whose mental or physical fitness seems to have been gravely and pemmanently diminished.

The following may be accommodated in a neutral country:

1. Wounded and sick whose recovery may be expected within one year of the date of the wound or the beginning of the illness, if treatment in a neutral country might increase the prospects of a more certain and speedy recovery.

2. Prisoners of war whose mental or physical health, according to medical opinion, is seriously threatened by continued captivity, but whose accommodation in a neutral country might remove such a threat.

Further -- The Geneva Convention (to which the Islamist Extremists are NOT parties) does NOT require a "prisoner exchange" -- and the repatriation takes place "after the cessation of hostilities".

So, PLEASE, Jimmy --- try again. What is the legal requirement for us to send the bad guys their TOP FIVE LEADERS during ongoing hostilities?
First off, if the opposition does not abide by the Geneva Convention, and a soldier is thought to be in immediate danger of death due to either murder or medical causes, then you try to make a deal to save the soldier. Second, we didn't send them home, we sent them to Qatar, to be monitored there for one year or until the war comes to an end. That decision was made in order to save a soldiers life and to bring him home to his family.

JimL
06-06-2014, 09:29 PM
While a swap was in the works FWIU it wasn't for these five guys. They were always considered no deal. And there had been a different trade in the works -- an exchange for cash but Obama quashed this because he wanted a prisoner swap and it looks like for these five.
Yes it was for these five guys, these very same five guys, and it was well publicized in 2011 and Republicans at the time thought it to be a great deal. Now could I have a reference for the latter assertion?

JimL
06-06-2014, 09:34 PM
Well, except for Obama, right? I mean, he does everything right.
Is that right?

JimL
06-06-2014, 10:07 PM
You know Jimmy, just when I think you can't say anything any dumber, you go and surprise me and say something even dumber. For starters, the Taliban has never signed the Geneva Convention and they have violated it so much, they likely would have been rounded up and shot on site if the invasion had taken place decades earlier.
We signed it idiot.



And considering they are not part of any recognized government and have violated about every provision of the Geneva Convention anyway, being put on trial for war crimes would likely be the least of their concerns. Really Jimmy, stop talking about stuff you clearly know nothing about.
Yeah, i guess we should stoop to their level lilpix. If they are being held for war crimes, then they should be tried for war crimes. And lilpix, i don't know if you can grasp this or not, but we don't put POW's on trial for the crimes of their group, we try them as individuals for their own crimes.



The Taliban is not part of the current Afghan government Jimmy, but were the post de facto dictators before the US came in. Even ignoring that, you seem to know nothing about the Geneva Convention. Stealing planes and using them to kill lots of people is against the Geneva Convention (IE I doubt they would be 'approved weapons'). Not wearing a military uniform during combat is also against the Geneva Convention. They don't avoid unnecessary suffering since they specifically target and kill lots of civilians and I somehow doubt planes full of people would fall into that either. Do you want me to go on about all the things the Taliban has done that is in direct violation of the Geneva Convention? In reality, if they were caught doing this stuff a century ago, it is likely they would have been rounded up and shot. However; the fact you'll defend such people that have no issue with killing any westerner is only further evidence that you don't have the slightest clue of what really is going on.
Thats right, we ousted the Taliban regime and installed our own, which is fine by me, but that doesn't change the fact that we are still at war against the same army we began with. Our installing another government doesn't ipso facto deligitimize the Taliban.



No Jimmy you are totally clueless of the international laws of war as you have shown above and still haven't got the slightest clue what you're talking about. Do yourself a favor and stop talking about military matters because your understanding of military law is dismal to non existent.
And this has what to do with the quote it is an answer to?

JimL
06-06-2014, 10:09 PM
You clearly are not, but that doesn't seem to stop you from opening your mouth and vomiting forth ignorance.
Were you looking in the mirror when you said that lilpix?

JimL
06-06-2014, 10:16 PM
I don't think Jimmy is aware of their mind set. They had no issue with taking planes full of people being using them as bombs to kill buildings full of people and were even dancing in the street over the entire event. They have declared a Holy War upon the West and will not stop until their objectives are met or they are all gone. I don't think Jimmy and Co really understand that.
And we had no issue with dropping atom bombs on the innocent civilians of Japan. Its called war lilpix!

JimL
06-06-2014, 10:46 PM
Btw, are any of you even aware of the fact that G.W. Bush released 500 Taliban detainees from Gitmo. Where was the outrage!

lilpixieofterror
06-07-2014, 06:50 AM
We signed it idiot.

That's right Jimmy, don't answer the point and just call a bunch of names because you can't answer it. Now, tell everybody what article 5, under the Geneva Convention says better yet, since you can't read, let me tell you what it does say. They are unlawful combatants and can be put on trial by our countries law. Since they are not part of a legitimate government or its military, they would be unlawful combatants. The Geneva Convention does not say they are POW's Jimmy, in fact, it would even go as far as to say we can pretty much do whatever we want to them, including putting them on trail for war crimes. You might want to stop listening to whatever your MSNBC overloads tell you and start actually looking this stuff up before you blurt out something really stupid and show everybody how little you really know.


Yeah, i guess we should stoop to their level lilpix. If they are being held for war crimes, then they should be tried for war crimes. And lilpix, i don't know if you can grasp this or not, but we don't put POW's on trial for the crimes of their group, we try them as individuals for their own crimes.

Jimmy, did you go and look up what the Geneva Convention says about their status? See Jimmy, I wear a military uniform and I'm not part of the medical or chaplain corp so I would fit under the status of a lawful combatant and would be considered a lawful combatant. The Taliban are not lawful combatants and thus they are not subject to the Geneva Convention, in fact, it even says we could pretty much disregard most of the articles too. Don't believe me? Go ahead and read this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unlawful_combatant#United_States) article for yourself.


Thats right, we ousted the Taliban regime and installed our own, which is fine by me, but that doesn't change the fact that we are still at war against the same army we began with. Our installing another government doesn't ipso facto deligitimize the Taliban.

:duh:

Sorry Jimmy, but the Taliban was never seen as a legitimate government of Afghanistan by the UN or the west anyway. From what I could find, they were only recognized by the UAE, Saudi Arabia, and Pakistan, so you can scream, rant, and rave all you want, but it seems nobody really ever saw them as a legitimate government anyway. Do keep showing though that your understanding of the events in question are dismal to non existent. It does say something about you though how you'll defend a group of terrorist, who torture anybody who disagrees with them, treats women like trash, beheads westerners they capture, wages a war on terror with Afghan civilians, and had no problem stealing aircraft full of people to ram buildings full of people.


And this has what to do with the quote it is an answer to?

Your dismal understanding of the laws and events in question. Do you know anything at all about the military? To show you know nothing about the military or anything to do with it, tell me what ROE means and what it is about. Do yourself a favor Jimmy, stop talking about things you don't know anything about or better yet, read before your mindless jump in to defend whatever your overloads tell you to defend and believe.

lilpixieofterror
06-07-2014, 06:53 AM
And we had no issue with dropping atom bombs on the innocent civilians of Japan. Its called war lilpix!

You are aware that:

1. Atom bombs are 'legitimate' weapons of war.
2. The Japanese government was training their civilian population to fight the allied troops if they attempted to invade the home islands.

It looks like your knowledge of history is about as good as your knowledge of the military or military laws.

lilpixieofterror
06-07-2014, 06:54 AM
Were you looking in the mirror when you said that lilpix?

More of the 'I am rubber and you are glue' comments? What's next, are you going to pull my pony tail and call me a poopie head?

lilpixieofterror
06-07-2014, 06:55 AM
Btw, are any of you even aware of the fact that G.W. Bush released 500 Taliban detainees from Gitmo. Where was the outrage!

:shrug:

I'm not here to defend Bush or Obama. I'm just here to correct your ignorance of military laws and customs.

Cow Poke
06-07-2014, 07:26 AM
Btw, are any of you even aware of the fact that G.W. Bush released 500 Taliban detainees from Gitmo. Where was the outrage!

Yes, and some of them returned to the battlefield as enemy combatants and sawed off the heads of our people and their own. You would think Obama could learn from the mistakes of others.

See, Jimmy, you're too busy blaming Bush to understand we can actually learn from his mistakes -- and if he did something bad, why the HECK do you want Obama doing the same thing? :huh:

Cow Poke
06-07-2014, 07:27 AM
And we had no issue with dropping atom bombs on the innocent civilians of Japan.

Yes, Jimmy -- that was a very AGONIZING decision that was not made lightly. You've noticed, I hope, that nobody has done that since, haven't you?

lilpixieofterror
06-07-2014, 11:13 AM
Yes, Jimmy -- that was a very AGONIZING decision that was not made lightly. You've noticed, I hope, that nobody has done that since, haven't you?

You could also argue that it was expected that entire Marine divisions were expected to have been wiped out, that starving Japan into submission would result in the deaths of millions, or that an invasion of the home islands would have resulted in (very likely) Japanese civilians engaging allied forces too and thus also contributing to huge casualties that might had numbered in the millions. Of course, we can't know this for sure, but we do have the documents of the Japanese military command after the war and we do know they had quite a bit to fight us with and were hopping to cause so much destruction, the allies wouldn't demand an unconditional surrender. Yet again, Jimmy's knowledge of history seems to be as bad as his knowledge of military law.

Cow Poke
06-07-2014, 11:50 AM
Yet again, Jimmy's knowledge of history seems to be as bad as his knowledge of military law.

He even had to abandon his goofy notion at all those people supporting Bundy violated the law. He's long on horsie poo, but short on horsepower.

JimL
06-07-2014, 02:57 PM
You could also argue that it was expected that entire Marine divisions were expected to have been wiped out, that starving Japan into submission would result in the deaths of millions, or that an invasion of the home islands would have resulted in (very likely) Japanese civilians engaging allied forces too and thus also contributing to huge casualties that might had numbered in the millions. Of course, we can't know this for sure, but we do have the documents of the Japanese military command after the war and we do know they had quite a bit to fight us with and were hopping to cause so much destruction, the allies wouldn't demand an unconditional surrender. Yet again, Jimmy's knowledge of history seems to be as bad as his knowledge of military law.
So, in war all is fair, whatever it takes to win, is that what you are implying lilpix? Excepting of course if it is the other side that does it!

rogue06
06-07-2014, 03:26 PM
Yes it was for these five guys, these very same five guys, and it was well publicized in 2011 and Republicans at the time thought it to be a great deal. Now could I have a reference for the latter assertion?

The Obama administration largely bypassed the intelligence community to green-light the risky swap of five Taliban leaders for American Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl, officials tell Fox News, as new details emerge about concerns with the deal at the highest levels of President Obama's team.

A military intelligence source also confirmed to Fox News that a second option -- involving the payment of a cash ransom for Bergdahl's freedom -- was pursued as late as December 2013.

The source said the goal was to reach out to Pakistan leadership with direct ties to the Taliban, and float the possibility of trading cash, instead of prisoners, for Bergdahl. That option, though, was put "on hold" in December when it was made clear the administration intended to pursue a prisoner swap.

Intelligence officials confirmed to Fox News that the Bergdahl prisoner swap was then on an accelerated track, and no formal assessment of the entire intelligence community was conducted. This made the opportunity to push back against the transfer extremely limited.


Source (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/06/04/intelligence-community-largely-ignored-in-taliban-bergdahl-trade-officials-say/)


IIRC I first heard about this on either CNN or Bloomberg but I picked the first story I ran across when I Googled it and figure the source would cause you to rip out your hair, spin on your eyebrows and spit out wooden nickles as you screamed about Fox News -- and that will make it worth while :grin:

rogue06
06-07-2014, 03:36 PM
You are aware that:

1. Atom bombs are 'legitimate' weapons of war.
2. The Japanese government was training their civilian population to fight the allied troops if they attempted to invade the home islands.

It looks like your knowledge of history is about as good as your knowledge of the military or military laws.
Moreover all estimates put the casualty tolls among the civilian population of Japan in the high hundreds of thousands and possibly more if a conventional invasion of the Japanese home islands was pursued. This was based on the civilian death toll after the invasion of Okinawa which ran around 100,000 killed.

In an odd sort of way the use of the two atomic bombs saved far more lives than what the toll would have been if they weren't used.

Cow Poke
06-07-2014, 04:13 PM
So, in war all is fair, whatever it takes to win, is that what you are implying lilpix?

No person of average intelligence or above would draw that inference from what Lpot said. :glare:


Excepting of course if it is the other side that does it!

Jimmy -- NEWSFLASH!!! In WWII, we were actually fighting OTHER COUNTRIES, not Islamic extremism. Your incredibly naive view that "the war will be over" when we leave Afghanistan is.... well... just dopey. There will be no "surrender ceremony" with the Islamist extremists in your lifetime.

Cow Poke
06-07-2014, 04:14 PM
Fox News -- and that will make it worth while :grin:

Sometimes I'm tempted to use a Fox News quote just because I know it drives him nuts. :smile:

:ponder:

Jedidiah
06-07-2014, 05:56 PM
No person of average intelligence or above would draw that inference from what Lpot said.

But look at who you are talking to.

lilpixieofterror
06-07-2014, 06:18 PM
So, in war all is fair, whatever it takes to win, is that what you are implying lilpix? Excepting of course if it is the other side that does it!

So you'd prefer millions of people dead to thousands? Nice to see where your priorities lay at. :thumb:

lilpixieofterror
06-07-2014, 06:22 PM
Moreover all estimates put the casualty tolls among the civilian population of Japan in the high hundreds of thousands and possibly more if a conventional invasion of the Japanese home islands was pursued. This was based on the civilian death toll after the invasion of Okinawa which ran around 100,000 killed.

In an odd sort of way the use of the two atomic bombs saved far more lives than what the toll would have been if they weren't used.

You also can't forget about the soviet invasion of Manchuria in early August, which basically cut off their last major supply line. Then again, I doubt Jimmy is aware of any of this stuff either.

Sparko
06-07-2014, 06:22 PM
JimL is so funny. :rofl:

He is like a caricature of a fundamentalist liberal foaming at the mouth.

lilpixieofterror
06-07-2014, 06:25 PM
No person of average intelligence or above would draw that inference from what Lpot said. :glare:



Jimmy -- NEWSFLASH!!! In WWII, we were actually fighting OTHER COUNTRIES, not Islamic extremism. Your incredibly naive view that "the war will be over" when we leave Afghanistan is.... well... just dopey. There will be no "surrender ceremony" with the Islamist extremists in your lifetime.

We were also fighting fanatics, which wanted to destroy our country and wouldn't of even blinked an eye nuking every city in the US if they had a chance. That and we already knew how the Germans dealt with those they saw as being lower than them and how the Japanese dealt with those they conquered. They rounded up lots of them and put them to death. I guess Jimmy advocates being nice to murderous empires and terrorist, who commit things like that?

Cow Poke
06-07-2014, 06:31 PM
So you'd prefer millions of people dead to thousands? Nice to see where your priorities lay at. :thumb:

Did you see that his new BFF WWII Vet who is pro-Obama credited the ATOM BOMB with saving him from going to Japan and dying there? :smug:

lilpixieofterror
06-07-2014, 06:33 PM
Did you see that his new BFF WWII Vet who is pro-Obama credited the ATOM BOMB with saving him from going to Japan and dying there? :smug:

But Jimmy says it was wrong, so he must be right. :rofl:

Sparko
06-07-2014, 06:38 PM
The Germans were working on making an atomic bomb, which is why we ended up with several of their scientists who wanted to defect to the USA and work on our bomb.

The only reason we didn't use an atomic bomb on Germany was because they were already defeated by the time our bomb was operational. The bombs used in Japan probably ended the war years faster than if we fought conventionally. It saved thousands of Allied lives by forcing the Japanese to surrender and many Japanese lives too.

Yes it was horrible what happened, but so were conventional bombs and fighting. War isn't pretty no matter how it is done. But sometimes it has to be done. Either that or just roll over and give up our countries and freedoms to anyone who decides to take it.


We didn't start WW2. We were actually staying out of it directly until the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor. That was probably the stupidest thing they could have done. They threw the first punch. We threw the last.

JimL
06-07-2014, 06:41 PM
The Obama administration largely bypassed the intelligence community to green-light the risky swap of five Taliban leaders for American Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl, officials tell Fox News, as new details emerge about concerns with the deal at the highest levels of President Obama's team.

A military intelligence source also confirmed to Fox News that a second option -- involving the payment of a cash ransom for Bergdahl's freedom -- was pursued as late as December 2013.

The source said the goal was to reach out to Pakistan leadership with direct ties to the Taliban, and float the possibility of trading cash, instead of prisoners, for Bergdahl. That option, though, was put "on hold" in December when it was made clear the administration intended to pursue a prisoner swap.

Intelligence officials confirmed to Fox News that the Bergdahl prisoner swap was then on an accelerated track, and no formal assessment of the entire intelligence community was conducted. This made the opportunity to push back against the transfer extremely limited.


Source (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/06/04/intelligence-community-largely-ignored-in-taliban-bergdahl-trade-officials-say/)


IIRC I first heard about this on either CNN or Bloomberg but I picked the first story I ran across when I Googled it and figure the source would cause you to rip out your hair, spin on your eyebrows and spit out wooden nickles as you screamed about Fox News -- and that will make it worth while :grin:
Sure you first heard it on CNN rogue, thats probably why the article states "unidentified" officials tell FOX News, and an "unidentified" military intelligence source tells FOX News, and "unidentified" Intelligence officials, tell FOX News. Its an obvious FOX News story, and as usual all of there sources are unidentified. What would FOX News do without you guys?
Btw, you're assertion was that the original deal, the deal that at the time so many republicans signed on to, was not for the same 5 individuals. It was!

JimL
06-07-2014, 06:59 PM
Sometimes I'm tempted to use a Fox News quote just because I know it drives him nuts. :smile:

:ponder:
Doesn't drive me nuts, what drives me nuts is that we have so many naive people in this country that are unable to discern the difference between journalism and right wing propaganda.

Epoetker
06-07-2014, 07:02 PM
Doesn't drive me nuts, what drives me nuts is that we have so many naive people in this country that are unable to discern the difference between journalism and right wing propaganda.

Journalism as it's presently conducted most definitely serves as right-wing propaganda :wink:

lilpixieofterror
06-07-2014, 07:02 PM
Doesn't drive me nuts, what drives me nuts is that we have so many naive people in this country that are unable to discern the difference between journalism and right wing propaganda.

AKA anything that dares to disagree with Jimmy MUST be 'right wing propaganda', but anything that agrees with Jimmy is journalism. :lmbo: Do yourself a favor and just stop posting, it will make you look much smarter than you're looking right now.

Cow Poke
06-07-2014, 07:03 PM
Doesn't drive me nuts, what drives me nuts is that we have so many naive people in this country that are unable to discern the difference between journalism and left wing propaganda.

fify

And, if you'd move to Siberia, there'd be one LESS naive person in this country. :wink: