agreed, but it not being smart never stopped him or his agenda before.
looks he was kicked out of the Coast Guard for “psychological reasons”.
wow.
[quote]Brett620 wrote:
looks he was kicked out of the Coast Guard for “psychological reasons”.
wow.[/quote]
But he served with honor 
Actually, now that the precedent has been established, perhaps we can use it to our advantage in getting back a serviceman who is actually worth a shit.
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
Actually, now that the precedent has been established, perhaps we can use it to our advantage in getting back a serviceman who is actually worth a shit.[/quote]
No fucking way Mexico does that deal. Mexicans know how to haggle. They’d hold out for something that has actual value.
I try my best to be respectful, but FUCK Obama for standing by and letting this Devil Dog rot in some shitty Mexican jail cell.
Maybe we should start treating Mexican intruders the same way we treat our captive Marine. And I agree with what USMC said, Obama is a tool for not helping Sgt. Tahmooressi, there is no political win involved is why he won’t get off his ass and help.
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
I try my best to be respectful, but FUCK Obama for standing by and letting this Devil Dog rot in some shitty Mexican jail cell. [/quote]
X100
What a raw deal. The US should have engaged in an arms trade for Bergdahl, ala Reagan to Iran (then a designated state-sponsor of terrorism). Instead of trading the Taliban five, the US could have transferred the following.
August 20, 1985: 96 TOW anti-tank missiles
September 14, 1985: 408 more TOWs
November 24, 1985: 18 Hawk anti-aircraft missiles
February 17, 1986: 500 TOWs
February 27, 1986: 500 TOWs
May 24, 1986: 508 TOWs, 240 Hawk spare parts
August 4, 1986: More Hawk spares
October 28, 1986: 500 TOWs
[quote]Bismark wrote:
What a raw deal. The US should have engaged in an arms trade for Bergdahl, ala Reagan to Iran (then a designated state-sponsor of terrorism). Instead of trading the Taliban five, the US could have transferred the following.
August 20, 1985: 96 TOW anti-tank missiles
September 14, 1985: 408 more TOWs
November 24, 1985: 18 Hawk anti-aircraft missiles
February 17, 1986: 500 TOWs
February 27, 1986: 500 TOWs
May 24, 1986: 508 TOWs, 240 Hawk spare parts
August 4, 1986: More Hawk spares
October 28, 1986: 500 TOWs[/quote]
Herein lies the difference: the Iranians held hundreds of US civilians hostage; as opposed to a single defector. The Iranians were torturing the CIA station chief. Reagan swapped arms not dangerous terrorists. And the Democrats then organised months of hearings trying to bring down the Reagan administration.
In fairness, Bismark, we didn’t just give the arms away, we sold them so we could partner with drug cartels and make even more money. At least Reagan got a return on his investment.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]Bismark wrote:
What a raw deal. The US should have engaged in an arms trade for Bergdahl, ala Reagan to Iran (then a designated state-sponsor of terrorism). Instead of trading the Taliban five, the US could have transferred the following.
August 20, 1985: 96 TOW anti-tank missiles
September 14, 1985: 408 more TOWs
November 24, 1985: 18 Hawk anti-aircraft missiles
February 17, 1986: 500 TOWs
February 27, 1986: 500 TOWs
May 24, 1986: 508 TOWs, 240 Hawk spare parts
August 4, 1986: More Hawk spares
October 28, 1986: 500 TOWs[/quote]
Herein lies the difference: the Iranians held hundreds of US civilians hostage; as opposed to a single defector. The Iranians were torturing the CIA station chief. Reagan swapped arms not dangerous terrorists. And the Democrats then organised months of hearings trying to bring down the Reagan administration.
[/quote]
Do you care to provide a citation for the hundreds of US hostages being held at the time? The Iran hostage crisis, in which 66 American citizens were detained, had been resolved in 1981. In regards to the Iran-Contra affair, I recall seven Americans being held hostage by Hezbollah and one being held by the Islamic Jihad Organization, respectively.
2512 TOW anti-tank weapons (each with a range of 4.2 KM) and significant anti-aircraft capabilities were given to a nation that had been designated as a state-sponsor of terror. That amount of heavy munitions doesn’t exactly pale in comparison to five Taliban commanders. How does a handful of hostages and the torture of a CIA covert operations officer warrant the transfer of that amount of cutting edge heavy weapon systems?
^ yep. It’s disgusting. It shows his true colors.
It’s indefensible.
[quote]Bismark wrote:
Do you care to provide a citation for the hundreds of US hostages being held at the time? The Iran hostage crisis, in which 66 American citizens were detained, had been resolved in 1981. In regards to the Iran-Contra affair, I recall seven Americans being held hostage by Hezbollah and one being held by the Islamic Jihad Organization, respectively.
[/quote]
Yes my mistake. The Iranians were paid $8 billion for the release of those hostages.
[quote]
2512 TOW anti-tank weapons (each with a range of 4.2 KM) and significant anti-aircraft capabilities were given to a nation that had been designated as a state-sponsor of terror. That amount of heavy munitions doesn’t exactly pale in comparison to five Taliban commanders. How does a handful of hostages and the torture of a CIA covert operations officer warrant the transfer of that amount of cutting edge heavy weapon systems? [/quote]
Those weapons were used in Iran’s war against Iraq. By contrast, the Obama administration gave Stinger missiles to Qatar who then gave them to the Taliban who used them to shoot down a Chinook in Afghanistan. That didn’t even make the mainstream news. And that weapons transfer wasn’t made to save US lives. By contrast Reagan’s deal to save the lives of US civilians led to months of hearings and nearly brought down his government.
[quote]Chushin wrote:
[quote]Brett620 wrote:
^ yep. It’s disgusting. It shows his true colors.
It’s indefensible. [/quote]
Has the US press been pushing the administration on this?
I just can’t believe that this has been allowed![/quote]
Are you serious? Who in the US press will push the administration on anything?
And no, the administration isn’t doing dick about this Marine. Maybe after he’s been there for a few more years the president will trade five cartel bosses for his release.
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
[quote]Chushin wrote:
[quote]Brett620 wrote:
^ yep. It’s disgusting. It shows his true colors.
It’s indefensible. [/quote]
Has the US press been pushing the administration on this?
I just can’t believe that this has been allowed![/quote]
Are you serious? Who in the US press will push the administration on anything?
And no, the administration isn’t doing dick about this Marine. Maybe after he’s been there for a few more years the president will trade five cartel bosses for his release.
[/quote]
Obama isn’t interested in the release of this guy because he didn’t defect to the enemy and express his hatred of the US. Obama was interested in Bergdahl because Bergdahl said what Obama is thinking. They share the same mindset.