Bowe Bergdahl: Deserter, Traitor, or Just a Pawn?

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
261

[quote]UtahLama wrote:

[quote]MaximusB wrote:
Freed Taliban Commander Tells Relative He’ll Fight Americans Again

http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/bowe-bergdahl-released/freed-taliban-commander-tells-relative-hell-fight-americans-again-n124451[/quote]

Good thing nobody saw that coming.

The best part is, every liberal friend I have is attacking his unit-mates…like it was their fault that he deserted.

God sometimes I hate politics.[/quote]

Dude probably has a gps surgically attached to his Vagina. I can’t imagine even our CIC would let these guy go without keeping tabs on them somehow.

There’s probably a UAV above each and every one of them right now.

262

[quote]SexMachine wrote:
Bergdahl refusing to speak to his family.

I would say it is endemic with PTSD

263

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]UtahLama wrote:

[quote]MaximusB wrote:
Freed Taliban Commander Tells Relative He’ll Fight Americans Again

http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/bowe-bergdahl-released/freed-taliban-commander-tells-relative-hell-fight-americans-again-n124451[/quote]

Good thing nobody saw that coming.

The best part is, every liberal friend I have is attacking his unit-mates…like it was their fault that he deserted.

God sometimes I hate politics.[/quote]

Dude probably has a gps surgically attached to his Vagina. I can’t imagine even our CIC would let these guy go without keeping tabs on them somehow.

There’s probably a UAV above each and every one of them right now. [/quote]

We cannot even keep track of our own people here in the states, why would I believe we could do so in Qatar ?

Add to that, that Qatar may not want to, or even be able to, keep tabs on these guys.

All this coming from a president who doesn’t know anything, and learns about it watching CNN.

265

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]Mufasa wrote:

…Also; one thing that is being totally forgotten in the zeal to criticize the President…

[/quote]

Can you think of any reason not to be zealous in criticizing the President?
[/quote]

because is fashionable in the Republican realm .

You know if we were not discussing all the unimportant shit , we could discuss the important shit

266

[quote]MaximusB wrote:
It’s the quality of negotiation that is unnerving.

Giving up 5 senior level officials for one Gomer Pile is hardly negotiating, this is not the first screw up by Obama, and probably not the last. Had Obama given up one Taliban, it would be more easy to stomach. The Taliban got the first 5 picks in the NFL draft, we ended up with the guy who washes jock straps and smelly socks.

If you think these released Taliban are going to stay on the couch watching Wheel of Fortune for the remainder of their lives, I have a ticket on the High Speed Rail for you. [/quote]

I love it. You’ve never had a single angry shot fired at you by a foreign enemy and you’re calling Bergdahl Gomer Pyle. One American, in my mind anyways, is worth at least five Taliban members any day of the week, and I don’t care who he is as long as he isn’t some psychopathic serial killer.

The Armed Forces live by a code. Part of that code mandates that they bring EVERY AMERICAN back home, dead or alive, no matter what. If the guys in his platoon had a problem with that and they’re going to bitch and moan about it, fuck them. Where’s their honor? Where was their honor when they were slandering a comrade, a fellow fucking AMERICAN, who was in captivity for years?

There’s a lot of crazy, stupid pieces of shit in this country. And every single soldier who dies does so for them. And those soldiers fucking know it. So the only ones who deserve ANY criticism whatsoever are the ones who are bitching and moaning about this Bergdahl guy. He was an American soldier. Those who criticize the guy should be fucking ashamed of themselves, quite frankly. Those people should be embarrassed even further if they are levying accusations against Bergdahl and they’ve never even been in combat before.

268

[quote]DBCooper wrote:
…If the guys in his platoon had a problem with that and they’re going to bitch and moan about it, fuck them. Where’s their honor? Where was their honor when they were slandering a comrade, a fellow fucking AMERICAN, who was in captivity for years?

… [/quote]

And where is the honor of the Administration’s mouthpieces, who slandered his platoon mates, as “psychopaths” in “baseball caps?”
This scythe swings both ways: what honor have you, slandering these men who had first hand knowledge of the deserter, and the consequences he brought to them?

269

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

I love it. You’ve never had a single angry shot fired at you by a foreign enemy and you’re calling Bergdahl Gomer Pyle. One American, in my mind anyways, is worth at least five Taliban members any day of the week, and I don’t care who he is as long as he isn’t some psychopathic serial killer.

The Armed Forces live by a code. Part of that code mandates that they bring EVERY AMERICAN back home, dead or alive, no matter what.
[/quote]

Actually the code is not to leave a fellow soldier on the battlefield. This guy deserted the battlefield, defected to the enemy and helped them kill his fellow soldiers. He was not captured by the enemy; he sought them out.

Aren’t you breaking your own rule here about not criticising anyone who’s been in combat? Or does that rule only apply to defectors who kill US soldiers? You need your fucking head examined.

With the guys who bravely served their country as opposed to the Benedict fucking Arnold who got at least half a dozen of them killed?

Surely someone trying to kill you no longer qualifies as a “comrade?”

Let me get this straight: Bergdahl does not deserve “ANY criticism whatsoever” but his fellow soldiers do? And you can’t criticise Bergdahl because he saw combat but you can criticise his fellow soldiers?

“Was” an American soldier. Then he defected to the Taliban.

I find it difficult to believe that you are being frank. Surely this insane post of yours was an attempt to cause outrage?

270

[quote]Chushin wrote:

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

[quote]MaximusB wrote:
It’s the quality of negotiation that is unnerving.

Giving up 5 senior level officials for one Gomer Pile is hardly negotiating, this is not the first screw up by Obama, and probably not the last. Had Obama given up one Taliban, it would be more easy to stomach. The Taliban got the first 5 picks in the NFL draft, we ended up with the guy who washes jock straps and smelly socks.

If you think these released Taliban are going to stay on the couch watching Wheel of Fortune for the remainder of their lives, I have a ticket on the High Speed Rail for you. [/quote]

I love it. You’ve never had a single angry shot fired at you by a foreign enemy and you’re calling Bergdahl Gomer Pyle. One American, in my mind anyways, is worth at least five Taliban members any day of the week, and I don’t care who he is as long as he isn’t some psychopathic serial killer.

The Armed Forces live by a code. Part of that code mandates that they bring EVERY AMERICAN back home, dead or alive, no matter what. If the guys in his platoon had a problem with that and they’re going to bitch and moan about it, fuck them. Where’s their honor? Where was their honor when they were slandering a comrade, a fellow fucking AMERICAN, who was in captivity for years?

There’s a lot of crazy, stupid pieces of shit in this country. And every single soldier who dies does so for them. And those soldiers fucking know it. So the only ones who deserve ANY criticism whatsoever are the ones who are bitching and moaning about this Bergdahl guy. He was an American soldier. Those who criticize the guy should be fucking ashamed of themselves, quite frankly. Those people should be embarrassed even further if they are levying accusations against Bergdahl and they’ve never even been in combat before. [/quote]

Where did you serve?[/quote]

I have several family members who are in the Armed Forces, including a cousin who was a SEAL. I’ve had several family members and friends killed in 9/11, and three relatives have died in war.

271

Coop,

Nidal Hasan was also an “American”, he also murdered 13 soldiers, how dare I criticize him. Leaving your post and possibly joining the enemy voids out any honor in joining the military, let’s get that clear.

Slandering a deserter is more than justified for the added risk of searching for him. This was not a guy captured on the battlefield, or some freak accident, he willingly walked off. FUCK HIM.

Leaving his post is not just about leaving his duty, but about abandoning his fellow soldiers as well.

272

Got a couple of questions for Sex Machine & possibly Jewbacca. Sex, you’re advocating a total war on terror. What would your battle plan be? How could we possibly wipe out a suicidal asymmetrical force that doesn’t care about civilian casualties, can pick and choose which soft targets to attack, and blend into the civilian population when attacked? Would you recommend a multi-national force to carry out this operation against them?

What do you think about Isis taking over parts of Iraq and Syria? Are the Saudis building a lawless buffer area to counter Iran’s growing influence in the Middle East? What if Isis grows as powerful as Hezbollah? Do you foresee a secular war of Wahhabi vs Shia, and what does the Isis threat mean to Israel?

273

[quote]Gkhan wrote:
Got a couple of questions for Sex Machine & possibly Jewbacca. Sex, you’re advocating a total war on terror. What would your battle plan be? How could we possibly wipe out a suicidal asymmetrical force that doesn’t care about civilian casualties, can pick and choose which soft targets to attack, and blend into the civilian population when attacked? Would you recommend a multi-national force to carry out this operation against them?

[/quote]

I can only really offer an informed opinion on overall grand strategy and diplomacy. I believe the primary tool must be the use of soft power. Here’s the thing: the enemy has to believe that you have resolve, that you’re dangerous and that you’re slightly crazy. When Dubya looked at the camera slightly cross eyed and talked about “evil doers” I can assure you that the Iranian regime took him seriously. The US needs a leader who can force regimes to crack down on their own crazies and desist from funding terrorists. We need to force them to do much of the work for us. And when they call our bluff we need to respond with overwhelming force in order to not lose credibility. Once a certain level of terror and credibility is attained the host countries will do much of the work for us in order to safeguard their own regimes.

ISIS are certainly the most violent faction in Syria but not the largest. But the outcome of the civil war remains to be seen.

The Saudi’s primary concern is the survival and stability of their own regime. A large part of their motive for exporting Wahhabism is to keep the crazies away from the kingdom. Their goal would be a Wahhabi regime in Syria to counter Iranian power - one that is subservient to them.

Not really likely. Hezbollah is larger and better equipped than the Lebanese Army. They’re more of a conventional force than a guerrilla force.

[quote]

Do you foresee a secular war of Wahhabi vs Shia, and what does the Isis threat mean to Israel?[/quote]

ISIS is estimated to be around 20,000-30,000 strong from what I remember. Its fighters are active in Iraq and Syria. I’m not naive enough to expect a “moderate” Sunni regime in Syria however I see an AQ affiliated regime in Syria to be the lesser of evils - basically because it would greatly weaken Iran and Hezbollah. Iran and Hezbollah are the main threats to Israel and Iran is the main threat to Western interests in the region.

274

“…we are fully committed to implementing the president’s direction that we transfer detainees to the greatest extent possible…”

275

Libs will never understand that you have to fight strength with strength. The fanatics only understand one thing: violence. They sense weakness and exploit it. Just like Putin is doing. I wouldn’t trade one Birddog for Bergdahl.

276

I don’t understand this move by Obama, it seems this was about closing Gitmo more than anything else. Assuming he gets that done, that is not a politically winner for him, not a huge one at least. It might give the fringe a tingle up their legs, but the masses seem to agree that this trade was not a good idea.

277

[quote]MaximusB wrote:
I don’t understand this move by Obama, it seems this was about closing Gitmo more than anything else. Assuming he gets that done, that is not a politically winner for him, not a huge one at least. It might give the fringe a tingle up their legs, but the masses seem to agree that this trade was not a good idea.[/quote]

He doesn’t care anymore because he knows he can ignore Congress and rule by executive fiat.

278

[quote]MaximusB wrote:
I don’t understand this move by Obama, it seems this was about closing Gitmo more than anything else. Assuming he gets that done, that is not a politically winner for him, not a huge one at least. It might give the fringe a tingle up their legs, but the masses seem to agree that this trade was not a good idea.[/quote]

He’s a lame duck president. He doesn’t care about winning politically. He promised to do this when he was campaigning and he’ll do it, just like when he pushed mandatory insurance to the detriment of the US workers.

(I guess the US workers weren’t being screwed enough by the corporations moving overseas and buying foreign manufactured products. I guess the insurance companies had to jump on board with the government’s backing and blessing as well. After all, it worked pretty well for the banks and auto industry, so why not the insurance companies?)

279

Hillary Clinton:

“These five guys are not a threat to the United States.”

Oh okay.

280

[quote]Gkhan wrote:

[quote]MaximusB wrote:
I don’t understand this move by Obama, it seems this was about closing Gitmo more than anything else. Assuming he gets that done, that is not a politically winner for him, not a huge one at least. It might give the fringe a tingle up their legs, but the masses seem to agree that this trade was not a good idea.[/quote]

He’s a lame duck president. He doesn’t care about winning politically. He promised to do this when he was campaigning and he’ll do it, just like when he pushed mandatory insurance to the detriment of the US workers.

(I guess the US workers weren’t being screwed enough by the corporations moving overseas and buying foreign manufactured products. I guess the insurance companies had to jump on board with the government’s backing and blessing as well. After all, it worked pretty well for the banks and auto industry, so why not the insurance companies?)[/quote]

But expending his diminishing political capital on closing Gitmo ? Doesn’t seem like a smart move to me.