Bowe Bergdahl

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
121

[quote]Chushin wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]Chushin wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]Chushin wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]Aragorn wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
Why are you comparing the U.S. to Israel Bismark?[/quote]

It’s an interesting comparison in that Israeli counter-terrorism policy is often held to be the ideal. To be clear, I’m vehemently opposed to the deal that the administration made.[/quote]

You did make an interesting point. I’m a bit fuzzy on your rationale for being opposed to the deal because I don’t remember what you said. Give a quick recap on your reasons?

I think we were along similar lines but I do not recall.
[/quote]

First, engaging in prisoner swaps with terrorists (which the Afghan Taliban are, regardless of their removal from State’s foreign terrorist organization list) increases the incentives for rebel groups to engage in terrorism. Counterterrorism strategies should aim to deprive terrorism of its political utility.

Second, the costs to benefit ratio of trading five high level commanders for an NCO does not justify the prisoner exchange.

Lastly, there are the circumstances of Bergdahl’s capture. He naively deserted his post and likely aided and abetted the enemy. Good men are dead because of him.
[/quote]

Wow.

We actually agree!
[/quote]

A cost benefit analysis is not something that should be done when American lives are at stake, imo. [/quote]

That sounds good in principle, but doesn’t wash in reality.

Would the US government pay the same ransom for a US senator as they would an unknown private who deserted? No, nor should they.

In reality there has to be some calculation of worth, unless we’re just going to pay whatever the terrorists ask for.
[/quote]

I believe it’s a terrible idea to give the government the power to decide worth. A Senator should not be worth more than some unknown private. He / she isn’t unknown to everyone and I’d argue that private is giving more to this country than some Senator collecting a pay check and voting along party line.

If we aren’t a country of Principle than what are we? [/quote]

A country of principle up to the point where it collides with reality.

Again I ask, if there is no calculation of worth, how do we decide how much is acceptable to pay?
[/quote]

There shouldn’t be a calculation imo. We should either pay the same for anyone or not pay at all.

Reality is a funny thing. I’d be careful about abandoning principles simply because reality, at the moment, makes it convenient to do so.

122

I should add something re: Obama v. Bush:

This is one of the issues that vets (and it appears posters here) are very much split over. But I think the divide is much smaller than people believe. If Bush had done this, the outcry wouldn’t be so severe. This isn’t a party issue or the fact that Obama is black. Seriously, no one gives a shit about that.

There are many in the military who questioned Bush and did not like his policies. But they liked Bush. That’s because they felt like Bush liked THEM. We felt that Bush took his job as CiC seriously, and genuinely cared about the troops. Had Bush made this trade, there wouldn’t be mommy and daddy on the White House lawn. Condi Rice wouldn’t be talking about his honorable service. We all would know that there WOULD be an investigation and justice would be meted out.

People don’t feel that Barry cares about the troops. Indeed, the feeling is that he actively dislikes them. This is due in part to the press making a big deal out of small things, mistakes that are frustrating for military guys, but could also be honest mistakes. But in larger part it’s also due to the fact that he genuinely doesn’t give a shit about the troops. At the very minimum, not even the biggest Barry apologist is going to suggest that he has the same rapport with the military that Bush did.

So we’re mad. We’re mad because good men died because of him. We’re mad because he betrayed us. And we’re mad because it appears that he was returned like a rescued hero, and used for political points. We want his blood (after a fair trial). Unless you’ve been to combat (or at least drank that delicious kool-aid you’re issued in my Corps) you cannot understand the depth of this betrayal. And all of our concerns have been realized with Obama. He was returned like a hero. He was returned via capitulation, not with us slaying bodies to get him. Young men who served alongside him who knew him were not able to get their voices out. It took forever for them to decide to charge him, his high ranking officers saying that there was pressure against it. And finally, when they DO decide to charge him, they say death is off the table IMMEDIATELY. Jesus, at least let the little peckerwood squirm a little.

123

So that fact that i pointed out the ridiculous double standard in the treatment and respect given to obama vs W. and that makes me a racist? am i following this correctly/

… were those Israeli soldiers deserters or not?

124

[quote]Aggv wrote:
So that fact that i pointed out the ridiculous double standard in the treatment and respect given to obama vs W. and that makes me a racist? am i following this correctly/
[/quote]

Yeah I don’t have any idea what that was all about. I’d rather talk about Bergdahl

125

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]Aragorn wrote:
My primary remaining problem with accepting Mikey’s position is pointed at in your 3rd reason. I am not persuaded, yet, that a deserter who ACTIVELY seeks out the enemy and seeks to JOIN them should be considered a soldier. I am inclined to consider them an enemy now, based on obvious actions taken by them. This is no longer a simple leaving your post (which is serious and awful enough by itself, deserving the fullest punishment).[/quote]

I will say that I agree with this in spirit, but aren’t people still innocent until proven guilty? Unless there is irrefutable evidence that Bergdahl is a traitor I feel as an American citizen and a soldier (be it a real one or not) he should get the benefit of due process.

If the principle of never leaving a man behind applies. Than the principle of due process should also apply. [/quote]

My understanding of it was that at the time of his disappearance that had been the analysis by all involved and supported by the evidence at hand: he had walked off and actively looked to join the Taliban.

It has been a while since I have looked back into the information at the time. I am certainly open to being wrong and hence corrected about it.

And yes, I agree in spirit: due process should also apply. However if you are in a war theater the rules of analysis are somewhat different: you do not have the luxury of full trial to decide, you must make decisions about actions to be taken/not taken based on evidence and intelligence at the time. This is because of obvious limitations to knowledge and investigation in an active war environment; actions must be taken in real-time, unlike a criminal investigation where one may play back the situation afterwards and dig into all peripheral avenues in court or during said investigation.

If all intelligence and evidence suggests a FOB is going to be assaulted or bombed the evening after tomorrow, then we are bound to make decisions based on that evidence even if the assault never occurs. If it were Stateside then full investigation would be warranted but that is not a luxury available in that particular environment. Does that make sense?

126

[quote]Mikeyali wrote:
I should add something re: Obama v. Bush:

This is one of the issues that vets (and it appears posters here) are very much split over. But I think the divide is much smaller than people believe. If Bush had done this, the outcry wouldn’t be so severe. This isn’t a party issue or the fact that Obama is black. Seriously, no one gives a shit about that.

There are many in the military who questioned Bush and did not like his policies. But they liked Bush. That’s because they felt like Bush liked THEM. We felt that Bush took his job as CiC seriously, and genuinely cared about the troops. Had Bush made this trade, there wouldn’t be mommy and daddy on the White House lawn. Condi Rice wouldn’t be talking about his honorable service. We all would know that there WOULD be an investigation and justice would be meted out.

People don’t feel that Barry cares about the troops. Indeed, the feeling is that he actively dislikes them. This is due in part to the press making a big deal out of small things, mistakes that are frustrating for military guys, but could also be honest mistakes. But in larger part it’s also due to the fact that he genuinely doesn’t give a shit about the troops. At the very minimum, not even the biggest Barry apologist is going to suggest that he has the same rapport with the military that Bush did.

So we’re mad. We’re mad because good men died because of him. We’re mad because he betrayed us. And we’re mad because it appears that he was returned like a rescued hero, and used for political points. We want his blood (after a fair trial). Unless you’ve been to combat (or at least drank that delicious kool-aid you’re issued in my Corps) you cannot understand the depth of this betrayal. And all of our concerns have been realized with Obama. He was returned like a hero. He was returned via capitulation, not with us slaying bodies to get him. Young men who served alongside him who knew him were not able to get their voices out. It took forever for them to decide to charge him, his high ranking officers saying that there was pressure against it. And finally, when they DO decide to charge him, they say death is off the table IMMEDIATELY. Jesus, at least let the little peckerwood squirm a little. [/quote]

100% agree.

127

[quote]Aggv wrote:
So that fact that i pointed out the ridiculous double standard in the treatment and respect given to obama vs W. and that makes me a racist? am i following this correctly/

… were those Israeli soldiers deserters or not? [/quote]

Don’t ask me. I think the notion is ridiculous, but apparently it’s because you don’t ride the CIC’s cock…

128

[quote]Aragorn wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]Aragorn wrote:
My primary remaining problem with accepting Mikey’s position is pointed at in your 3rd reason. I am not persuaded, yet, that a deserter who ACTIVELY seeks out the enemy and seeks to JOIN them should be considered a soldier. I am inclined to consider them an enemy now, based on obvious actions taken by them. This is no longer a simple leaving your post (which is serious and awful enough by itself, deserving the fullest punishment).[/quote]

I will say that I agree with this in spirit, but aren’t people still innocent until proven guilty? Unless there is irrefutable evidence that Bergdahl is a traitor I feel as an American citizen and a soldier (be it a real one or not) he should get the benefit of due process.

If the principle of never leaving a man behind applies. Than the principle of due process should also apply. [/quote]

My understanding of it was that at the time of his disappearance that had been the analysis by all involved and supported by the evidence at hand: he had walked off and actively looked to join the Taliban.

It has been a while since I have looked back into the information at the time. I am certainly open to being wrong and hence corrected about it.

And yes, I agree in spirit: due process should also apply. However if you are in a war theater the rules of analysis are somewhat different: you do not have the luxury of full trial to decide, you must make decisions about actions to be taken/not taken based on evidence and intelligence at the time. This is because of obvious limitations to knowledge and investigation in an active war environment; actions must be taken in real-time, unlike a criminal investigation where one may play back the situation afterwards and dig into all peripheral avenues in court or during said investigation.

If all intelligence and evidence suggests a FOB is going to be assaulted or bombed the evening after tomorrow, then we are bound to make decisions based on that evidence even if the assault never occurs. If it were Stateside then full investigation would be warranted but that is not a luxury available in that particular environment. Does that make sense?[/quote]

Ya makes sense.

129

Sigh… Okay, one last post.

[quote]Aggv wrote:
So that fact that i pointed out the ridiculous double standard in the treatment and respect given to obama vs W. and that makes me a racist? am i following this correctly/

[/quote]

No. The response to you was an obvious attempt to bury your point through the use of flag waving and bullied PC nonsense. Direct racism charge or not, Biz’s bullshit ad hom, while completely ignoring your valid point was the sheep skin cloth pulled over people’s eyes to try and silence your post. Which is the very reason Obama supporters cry racism at any single critical statement levied. It changes the subject, puts the stated person on the defensive and purposely buries the point.

And it worked perfectly. Here we sit, pages later talking about me, needing to give undue respect and whether or not you have some sort of personal problem because you aint da patriotz when you call Bam a name.

People don’t give Biz enough credit for the chess game he plays.

130

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
This is stupid to talk about and I’m not the conjecture police anyway. Feel free to spin words like everyone else on PWI. It’s a free country. [/quote]

One page later…

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

Don’t ask me. I think the notion is ridiculous, but apparently it’s because you don’t ride the CIC’s cock… [/quote]

131

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
This is stupid to talk about and I’m not the conjecture police anyway. Feel free to spin words like everyone else on PWI. It’s a free country. [/quote]

One page later…

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

Don’t ask me. I think the notion is ridiculous, but apparently it’s because you don’t ride the CIC’s cock… [/quote]
[/quote]

Oh sorry, not riding, my bad…

[quote]countingbeans wrote:
I guess you were too busy not liking people that don’t prostrate themselves before the CIC? [/quote]

132

Obama fails to make Fortune’s World’s greatest leaders.

134

1600×1226 551 KB

[quote]countingbeans wrote:
No. The response to you was an obvious attempt to bury your point through the use of flag waving and bullied PC nonsense. Direct racism charge or not, Biz’s bullshit ad hom, while completely ignoring your valid point was the sheep skin cloth pulled over people’s eyes to try and silence your post. Which is the very reason Obama supporters cry racism at any single critical statement levied. It changes the subject, puts the stated person on the defensive and purposely buries the point.

And it worked perfectly. Here we sit, pages later talking about me, needing to give undue respect and whether or not you have some sort of personal problem because you aint da patriotz when you call Bam a name.

People don’t give Biz enough credit for the chess game he plays. [/quote]

Bismark: “It’s interesting to note that Israel, the beau ideal of counterterrorism around these parts, has released 7,000 Palestinian prisoners to secure freedom for 19 Israelis and to retrieve the bodies of eight others.”

usmccds423:“Why are you comparing the U.S. to Israel Bismark?”

Bismark: “It’s an interesting comparison in that Israeli counter-terrorism policy is often held to be the ideal. To be clear, I’m vehemently opposed to the deal that the administration made.”

Aggv: “Are they deserters? Im dumbfounded by the obamao apologists”

Bismark: “I’m dumbfounded by those who are unable to use proper punctuation and have such contempt for the office of the President to feel that its acceptable to modify the CIC’s name into various pejoratives. I may disagree with the rationale that supported the invasion of Iraq, but I will always practice decorum by referring to former President Bush by his proper title.”

*The only ad hominem in the post above, explicit or implicit, is the quip directed at Aggv’s punctuation in his post, or lack thereof. There isn’t an iota of me playing the race card, a fact that other posters have attested to. Note that the pejorative “Obamao” is a portmanteau of “Obama” and “Mao”, implying that President Obama and Mao Zedong - a Chinese Communist revolutionary and the founding father of the People’s Republic of China - are bedfellows at worst and fellow travelers at best. I chastised Aggv for his impertinence. I didn’t even go on to insult him for what I could understandably perceive as a profound nescience of introductory economics and political science in comparing Obama to Mao. I would have done the same had he used Fuehrer to refer to former President George W. Bush. You were the one who introduced the race card in this thread Beans, not me.

In regard to me being a “Obamao apologist” and “Obama supporter”, you should direct your attention to my substantial criticism of the administrations prisoner swap on page 4 of this thread.

What chess game am I playing Beans? I’m not being deceptive. I’m not responsible for Bean Quixote tilting at windmills.

135

[quote]Bismark wrote:
What chess game am I playing [/quote]

The one where you keep going on about “obamao” and continue to ignore the question related to your comparison about Israel and USA swapping soldiers.

Were the Israeli soldiers swapped for terrorist deserters?

That kinda makes a huge difference when attempting to compare the actions of the 2 nations.

136

[quote]countingbeans wrote:
Because “muzzlims iz tha badz” plays well with the base. And Hussein sounds bad.
[/quote]

So it’s racist to refer to his middle name in an attempt to pander to such, ya?

P.S. I’m honestly surprised that you didn’t bring up that we occasionally do refer to presidents by their full names. Like FDR and JFK.

137

[quote]Aggv wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:
What chess game am I playing [/quote]

The one where you keep going on about “obamao” and continue to ignore the question related to your comparison about Israel and USA swapping soldiers.

Were the Israeli soldiers swapped for terrorist deserters?

That kinda makes a huge difference when attempting to compare the actions of the 2 nations. [/quote]

I’m not sure, you’d have to ask the terrorist organizations if their captured operatives were deserters. If you weren’t so intent on being obtuse, you’d understand that I made no such comparison. I simply introduced the history of Israeli prisoner swaps as an interesting anecdote that related to the general theme of the thread. Ergo, the question you posed was immaterial. I posted my opinion of the Bergdahl exchange on page 4. I’m not going to restate my argument.

138

[quote]magick wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:
Because “muzzlims iz tha badz” plays well with the base. And Hussein sounds bad.
[/quote]

So it’s racist to refer to his middle name in an attempt to pander to such, ya?

P.S. I’m honestly surprised that you didn’t bring up that we occasionally do refer to presidents by their full names. Like FDR and JFK.[/quote]

I don’t thinm that’s what beans was getting at in that particular post you quoted, I think that was a lot of sarcasm.

In general I don’t think it’s racist at all to habitually refer to Obama by including his middle name. I do, however, think its in poor taste by making an obvious play to associate the sound of his middle name with something bad. It’s essentially a low brow marketing gimmick or emotional jab to try to needle people on a topic (or range of topics) that’s obviously hot.

There’s no real reason to say it that way, not aesthetic nor substantial. Now that said BHO never bothered me personally, but you have to admit “Barack Hussein Obama” just doesn’t have the same flow to it as “John F. Kennedy”. Besides, we never really refer to JFK using his middle name, just his initial. FDR we do for some reason.

139

[quote]Aggv wrote:

The one where you keep going on about “obamao” and continue to ignore the question related to your comparison about Israel and USA swapping soldiers.
[/quote]

Some people pick out some minor fact you may or may not have gotten totally correct and ride that minor mistake for page after page all the while ignoring the important points you have made & attacking you because you got a single fact wrong, or used the wrong punctuation or bad grammar.

140

[quote]magick wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:
Because “muzzlims iz tha badz” plays well with the base. And Hussein sounds bad.
[/quote]

So it’s racist to refer to his middle name in an attempt to pander to such, ya?

P.S. I’m honestly surprised that you didn’t bring up that we occasionally do refer to presidents by their full names. Like FDR and JFK.[/quote]

It isn’t inherently racist, no, not at all. It does however clearly invoke the memories of beheading, burning alive, planes in buildings and the giant fucking mess that is the region of the world were people have similar sounding names.

Right and honest tacit? No, quite the opposite. effective to anyone that isn’t a letter voter? no. racist? no.

As for the second part. The fucking man named his dog “BO” right? He doesn’t deserve a middle initial.