US Army Sgt Bergdhal, thoughts?

[Larry L.]

Some are trying to cast objections...in order to obscure the idiocy of reloading the Taliban's senior leadership in Afghanistan. These are not some Hamas rock throwers being exchanged, they are mass murdering war criminals, some of which have committed to return to the fight.
What is not ever mentioned is the number of lives lost in securing their initial capture.

'Pretty much what I was about to post my own darned self.

The cluelessness of the Obama Admin with regard to this swap is well sumed up by the all-knowing comment made by Sec. Kerry when he said it's "a lot of baloney" to suggest the five Taliban goons released in exchange for Bergdahl will return to battle and kill Americans. History clearly suggests they will.




(Edit: And remember that one of the Taliban 'leaders' who was a part of the "negotiations" on the Bergdahl swap SAID, "It's better to kidnap one person like Bergdahl than kidnapping hundreds of useless people. It has encouraged our people. NOW EVERYBODY WILL WORK HARD TO CAPTURE SUCH AN IMPORTANT BIRD."

Hell-oooooooo...)

 

[Jeff Young]

I'd like to think every one here, if they were in charge, and were faced with one American potential dying or being killed v. giving up five captives in a war that is winding down, would think long and hard and remember that "no one left behind" is the over arching principle here.

As it has been for the Israelis and the Brits and basically every other civilized Western nation.

 

[Keith]

Hey Larry, did he (the terrorist) say that down the pub? :laugh:

I don't believe anything I hear anymore. I think the public are being played to the hilt and I refuse to get sweaty about it - plenty will in my place I'm quite sure. And have a listen to what Jeff just said - its important.

Otherwise, we'll just wind up like the Robert Shaw character in Battle of The Bulge movie, when his servant Conrad says "You mean we have won?"

"No Conrad, we have not won but we have not lost either"

Conrad (confused) "If we have not won and we have not lost what does it mean?"

"It means, Conrad, that the war will go on!"

 

[Larry L.]

And have a listen to what Jeff just said - its important.

I did.

He said, "I'd like to think every one here...would think long and hard and remember that "no one left behind" is the over arching principle here."

Question: Would Pres. Truman / Gen. Eisenhower have swapped Hitler's top 5 guys for Slovik?

Nitpick the comparison all you want, but, I believe it illustrates my point.

Many here seem to be debating this issue from the viewpoint that swapping for the 5 goons was the O-N-L-Y way to affect Bergdahl's release. I doubt that was the case. (E.g.: I seem to recall the Israeli govt exercising a different 'hostage/prisoner solution' at Entebbe.)

 

[Keith]

I don't think its ideal no, but what do you do? We're not in possession of any like the real facts that would lead to any form of sensible consensus here.

I am definitely for the principle of non negotiation with terrorists. It makes perfect sense.

However, I would never close the door on a workable deal that solves real world problems. I cannot imagine what drove this particular deal, and none of us know what it was. Yet, or maybe will ever.

However if it transpires that deep seeds of mistrust of your administration has thus been sown as a result, this is a massive potential victory for the terrorists over anything they might achieve by conventional terrorist means.

These Taliban guys are not stupid, they have centuries of experience in this kind of stuff. A couple of hundred years ago, an entire British Army was only extracted following the payment of a lot of gold. Nothing much has changed.

 

[Larry L.]

However if it transpires that deep seeds of mistrust of your administration...

That may be the under statement of the decade, Keith...and the administration DESERVES EVERY GRAIN OF IT.

They even LIE about their LIES - REPEATEDLY.

 

[Keith]

Clever fellows. They must have developed a lie matrix because the hardest thing is remembering what lies you told to whom, and to tell lies about telling lies consistently, that's genius territory.

So, if he's this bad (I have no idea whether he is or no,) why hasn't he been impeached or did he turn the tape machine off for too long?

PS don't worry about me Larry, what I think counts for nowt and is not informed anyway. I'm just sitting here waiting for the Fat Lady to arrive and start singing. And she's late!:veryangry:

 

[Larry L.]

Clever fellows. They must have developed a lie matrix because the hardest thing is remembering what lies you told to whom, and to tell lies about telling lies consistently, that's genius territory.

Oh, you have NO idea! 'One whopper after another...and the liberal media over here either spin, underplay, or ignore those situations completely - BIG time. The media did everything but outright implore people to vote for Obama the 1st time around. They weren't subdued very much the last time around either. He's their guy. [/QUOTE]

So, if he's this bad (I have no idea whether he is or no,) why hasn't he been impeached or did he turn the tape machine off for too long?

Short answer IMHO: Politics and gutlessness, plain and simple.

 

[Howard Jones]

I'd like to think every one here, if they were in charge, and were faced with one American potential dying or being killed v. giving up five captives in a war that is winding down, would think long and hard and remember that "no one left behind" is the over arching principle here.

As it has been for the Israelis and the Brits and basically every other civilized Western nation.

Jeff, I'll let you know when they grab up the next guy and want to make another trade. At a 5 to 1 ratio they can trade about 20 of our guys for what's left in Guantanamo.

 

[Jim Rosenthal]

"Question: Would Pres. Truman / Gen. Eisenhower have swapped Hitler's top 5 guys for Slovik?"

Larry, you are mistaken here, and my using the word "mistaken" is kind to you, to say the least. Slovik had a trial. Bergdahl has had none of that, none of us know the facts, and the media are cherry-picking who they interview to support their a priori points of view. Give it a rest and wait til the facts come out, would you, please? This kind of bigoted rush to judgment is un-American. It is much more what one would expect from zealots such as the Taliban.

 

[Doug S.]

I did.

He said, "I'd like to think every one here...would think long and hard and remember that "no one left behind" is the over arching principle here."

Question: Would Pres. Truman / Gen. Eisenhower have swapped Hitler's top 5 guys for Slovik?

He would have if the war were ending...and like it or not, the Americans are, thanks to our POTUS, ending our combat presence in Afghanistan, exactly as and when Obama promised during the pre-election campaign. Other than the Vietnam "war", where there were lingering rumors of POWs remaining in captivity, when a war ends all POWs are returned to their home countries...so, yes, it would have happened even at the end of WWII regardless of the ratio or the identity of the prisoners, to answer your question.

Obama had this to say in an interview I watched last week...something to the effect of "There is a lot of criticism about us trading POWs with the enemy, but that is the nature of the beast...you don't trade POWs with your friends, only with your enemies."

Can't argue with that.

Cheers!

Doug

 

[Larry L.]

He would have if the war were ending...

WRONG.


And that brings up another thing - who besides Obama SAYS the war is ending? Have you heard/seen/been promised by anyone that Al Quaeda is going to cease hostilities by day 'X'??? No, you haven't. Trust me when I tell you they won't be... :evil:

 

[Keith]

Then the 'war' will continue in a different place. The hawks can relax. There'll always be a war for you, which means plenty of work for the munitions makers and body bag machinists.

 

[Jim Rosenthal]

Amen, unfortunately. We could solve THAT problem if the folks who were so keen to go to war actually had to fight in it.

 

[Larry L.]

Larry, you are mistaken here, and my using the word "mistaken" is kind to you, to say the least. Slovik had a trial...

You've missed (or ignored) my point entirely.

Then the 'war' will continue in a different place.

Unfortunately that is exactly the case...and 'is the point I was trying to make there.

Amen, unfortunately. We could solve THAT problem if the folks who were so keen to go to war actually had to fight in it.

'Has nothing to do with being "keen to go to war", Doc. War has already been declared by Al Quaeda...on all of us non-Muslims.

 

[Keith]

You're not a non Muslim Larry, you're worse - you're an Unbeliever! :laugh:

 

[Jeff Young]

It may surprise you to learn that Al Qaeda thinks we declared war on them long ago. I'm not saying they are right, I'm saying there is always another perspective on things.

 

[Jeff Young]

Jeff, I'll let you know when they grab up the next guy and want to make another trade. At a 5 to 1 ratio they can trade about 20 of our guys for what's left in Guantanamo.

How's about a Romney bet? $1k this doesn't happen again in the future in Afghanistan? lol

 

[Keith]

When the Russians pulled out I guess the CIA stopped sending them goodies - that's probably enough for a Declaration of War for these nut cases...

 

[Jeff Young]

They are overly sensitive sometimes, I agre...lol..

What I meant more was that Saudi, Yemen, Afghanistan, parts of Pakistan are (and were) VERY remote places, very poor places --- until (for Saudi anyway) the discovery of oil in the 40s/50s. These are the breeding grounds of Al Qaeda, and not, for example, the more modern Arab states like Iran, Iraq, Syria, Jordan, etc.

"They" have viewed the US and Western presence in the Gulf and in their lands, extracting oil and changing their culture as a war on their way of life since the 40s/50s. They've viewed the Western imposition of the state of Israel on them as, effectivley, a declaration of war.

And so on.

Again not saying it's right, but their are historical reasons for why Al Qaeda exists and the US and the West are a part of them. DId we provoke 9/11 and other attacks? Of course not, but we have done things in the Middle East that you can at least understand as causing some of the reaciton they have.