Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Catwalker

Bowe Bergdahl, anyone want to talk about this?

Recommended Posts

This has become kind of a big deal. Anyone want to discuss it? I wouldn't mind posting my thoughts, but I don't want to waste my time, either.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually, I'm kind of interested to hear what you think. On one hand, you sure love to endorse anyone who says anything against the Dems or those who vote for them. On the other, I would imagine "No man left behind" to be a principle you're pretty fond of. Where does that leave you?

 

Congrats, by the way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A non-issue. In attempting to negotiate peace with the Taliban, of course we're going to need to close down Gitmo and release the prisoners etc. We got someone out of the deal, and Gitmo will be closed in a few months, most likely.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually, I'm kind of interested to hear what you think. On one hand, you sure love to endorse anyone who says anything against the Dems or those who vote for them. On the other, I would imagine "No man left behind" to be a principle you're pretty fond of. Where does that leave you?

 

Congrats, by the way.

 

Thanks. I don't feel any differently yet. I'll let you know how I feel when the pay increase happens.

 

So you've already pre-judged my comments? I'm just a steaming pile of cognitive dissonance to you?

 

If I had a singular complaint about FB, it would be that I can't control what my friends see that I've liked or commented on. Not that I'm ashamed of any of that, but it seems as though it just picks random shit to tell my friends that I've liked or commented on. I do criticize everyone on the political spectrum, and quite often. Sure, I criticize the left/Dems a bit more, and by volume it seems like I only criticize one side, but I actually do "endorse" critical statements from all sides.

 

Want my take? Sure. I'd like to suspect that the administration timed the exchange in such a way as to take some of the heat off the mess with the VA, possibly with the thought that the POTUS would look like a supporter of the troops because the VA scandal gave the opposite impression. (But I know this deal has been in the works for months and it's a bit cynical to think there's some kind of timing involved.) And, it sets a dangerous precedent to exchange American service members for prisoners belonging to the party with whom we're at war before the war is over. I don't care about the 30-day thing everyone is talking about, with having to notify Congress, blah blah blah. Republicans are jumping for joy, thinking they finally have an obviously impeachable offense; I doubt it and it's silly for them to try.

 

Even though Bergdahl was a deserter, we don't leave American service members behind. Period. I applaud the POTUS for getting him out of there before we shut out the lights in AFG because it's highly unlikely we'd ever see him again after the end of this year or next. Bergdahl broke the law and deserves to be punished in accordance with that law. Yes, he was probably ass-raped every single day and I've heard/seen people say that he's been punished enough just by being with the TB for so long. But that's not punishment; that's natural consequences and there's a difference. We are a society of laws, with the military being much more so. He's a soldier until the day he isn't and he is subject to the Uniform Code of Military Justice until that last day of his service.

 

He should be stripped of all rank and benefits, dishonorably discharged, and executed. Or, if not executed, locked away in Ft. Leavenworth, where he'll likely be killed by his fellow inmates. What will probably happen is that he'll be demoted, dishonorably discharged, and will go away quietly into the night.

 

I know that he'll never get a fair shake in life, especially since Homeland is such a successful show.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A non-issue. In attempting to negotiate peace with the Taliban, of course we're going to need to close down Gitmo and release the prisoners etc. We got someone out of the deal, and Gitmo will be closed in a few months, most likely.

 

You do know that there will NEVER be peace with the TB, right? You are completely and utterly naive if you think so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You do know that there will NEVER be peace with the TB, right? You are completely and utterly naive if you think so.

 

No shit. But the world's more complex than that. We give them their leaders, they give us our troop. We give them weapons, and they don't attack us.

 

It's pretty simple really. We'll be giving them weapons/money in a few years, they'll cause some stupid shit in some place we don't care about. Life goes on.

 

Just remember, we gave them weapons/money/logistics and got this.

 

c2qgIh.jpg

 

We stopped giving them support, and they attacked us. The leaders of terrorist cells aren't idiots, they know they need support to continue their operations.

 

 

 

These are the other guys we're funding/training in Syria right now.

 

*Gore/allah akbar warning*

https://ia801509.us.archive.org/18/items/al_saleel_4/SaleelSawarim.mp4

*Gore/allah akbar warning*

 

Note the American made M4's/SR25's while they drive around decapitating civilians.

 

 

More on topic, I don't believe desertion should be a crime, and I hope he fights deportation to the USA from Germany, and makes a break for Russia.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks. I don't feel any differently yet. I'll let you know how I feel when the pay increase happens.

 

So you've already pre-judged my comments? I'm just a steaming pile of cognitive dissonance to you?

 

If I had a singular complaint about FB, it would be that I can't control what my friends see that I've liked or commented on. Not that I'm ashamed of any of that, but it seems as though it just picks random shit to tell my friends that I've liked or commented on. I do criticize everyone on the political spectrum, and quite often. Sure, I criticize the left/Dems a bit more, and by volume it seems like I only criticize one side, but I actually do "endorse" critical statements from all sides.

 

Want my take? Sure. I'd like to suspect that the administration timed the exchange in such a way as to take some of the heat off the mess with the VA, possibly with the thought that the POTUS would look like a supporter of the troops because the VA scandal gave the opposite impression. (But I know this deal has been in the works for months and it's a bit cynical to think there's some kind of timing involved.) And, it sets a dangerous precedent to exchange American service members for prisoners belonging to the party with whom we're at war before the war is over. I don't care about the 30-day thing everyone is talking about, with having to notify Congress, blah blah blah. Republicans are jumping for joy, thinking they finally have an obviously impeachable offense; I doubt it and it's silly for them to try.

 

Even though Bergdahl was a deserter, we don't leave American service members behind. Period. I applaud the POTUS for getting him out of there before we shut out the lights in AFG because it's highly unlikely we'd ever see him again after the end of this year or next. Bergdahl broke the law and deserves to be punished in accordance with that law. Yes, he was probably ass-raped every single day and I've heard/seen people say that he's been punished enough just by being with the TB for so long. But that's not punishment; that's natural consequences and there's a difference. We are a society of laws, with the military being much more so. He's a soldier until the day he isn't and he is subject to the Uniform Code of Military Justice until that last day of his service.

 

He should be stripped of all rank and benefits, dishonorably discharged, and executed. Or, if not executed, locked away in Ft. Leavenworth, where he'll likely be killed by his fellow inmates. What will probably happen is that he'll be demoted, dishonorably discharged, and will go away quietly into the night.

 

I know that he'll never get a fair shake in life, especially since Homeland is such a successful show.

 

Cognitive dissonance? Not usually, I just figured in this specific context the topic conjures two sets of beliefs that are really opposed, because Obama has justified the outcome of this story with a pro-military approach. Thus the conflict...

 

Regarding your facebook likes/comments -- and you are right, that is what I was referring to -- I don't claim to know everything you read and like and comment on. To begin with I don't pay attention to everything that's on my feed and, like you said, it's not like facebook shows 100% of anyone's activity to others. However, and please don't take this as a comment made in aggression, because it's not, I have seen you like some pieces of serious journalistic trash, seemingly just because it conformed with your existing beliefs. Each side of the aisle has its retards who do a shitty job of representing their beliefs, but for right-wing writers my measuring stick is this: if the writing refers to "the Dems" or "the Liberals" as a group of people that does or thinks something, it's written by a retard. That kind of speech is stupid on the same level as racism is stupid. There is no one thing that holds true about an entire group as large as "democrats" (what is that, anyway? people who voted for democrats at the last election?) in terms of what they are or do, just like there is no one belief or action that holds true for the entire group of blacks, or women, or gays. To speak in those terms is obviously to display biased partisanship with no basis in objectivity. You should not support these people. There are plenty of reasonable, conservative opinions out there.

 

The most offensive one in recent memory was this, I forget, Business Insider? or some other finance-oriented outlet who made fun of the ideal of environment protection because "the liberals" are asking us to safeguard the planet of tomorrow, in 100 or 200 years without realizing the impact it has on humans today. How is Bob supposed to get to his job in the valley if he can't fill up his tank?

 

Are you fucking serious? We're a bunch of parasitic maggots. Of course it doesn't matter that Bob can't fill up his fucking tank. We're halfway through the process of destroying 65 million years of evolution in about 200 years. I'd sooner wipe out the entire human race than keep us on the path we're on. There is no mechanism by which we will resolve this issue ourselves. No matter of ingenuity or science or activism will reverse this course. We are hard-wired for survival and competition but we have mastered our environment so we're no longer threatened by it. We have turned that survival instinct against each other and the only people who have the ability to effect change are those whose spirit of competition and self-interest is strongest. By definition, those of us who would sacrifice our own interest for the good of humanity are never going to be in a position to do so.

 

You liked that blog post or article or whatever it was. You contributed to propagate that person's worthless, dangerous opinion. That scared me. But anyways...

 

Regarding the soldier, I actually agree with everything you said, the suspicious nature of the timing which is most likely just a coincidence, the quality of the POTUS reaction and the fact that if, after the investigation is concluded, it is determined that he did desert, then he should be found guilty of that... all the way until your proposed consequences. No one should be executed, and certainly not for failing to support the American war machine, but I understand that that viewpoint is totally incompatible with yours since 1. as a soldier yourself, you need to know for certain that the guy next to you has your back no matter what, a reality that I couldn't possibly understand, and desertion flies in the face of that and 2. you likely support the death penalty in other cases as well whereas I never do, which is a fundamental belief difference that is external to this topic.

 

Other than that death penalty bit though, our positions are really pretty close.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Are you fucking serious? We're a bunch of parasitic maggots. Of course it doesn't matter that Bob can't fill up his fucking tank. We're halfway through the process of destroying 65 million years of evolution in about 200 years. I'd sooner wipe out the entire human race than keep us on the path we're on. There is no mechanism by which we will resolve this issue ourselves. No matter of ingenuity or science or activism will reverse this course. We are hard-wired for survival and competition but we have mastered our environment so we're no longer threatened by it. We have turned that survival instinct against each other and the only people who have the ability to effect change are those whose spirit of competition and self-interest is strongest. By definition, those of us who would sacrifice our own interest for the good of humanity are never going to be in a position to do so.

 

I love you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought our government had a firm policy not a capitulate to terrorist demands.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The most offensive one in recent memory was this, I forget, Business Insider? or some other finance-oriented outlet who made fun of the ideal of environment protection because "the liberals" are asking us to safeguard the planet of tomorrow, in 100 or 200 years without realizing the impact it has on humans today. How is Bob supposed to get to his job in the valley if he can't fill up his tank?

 

Are you fucking serious? We're a bunch of parasitic maggots. Of course it doesn't matter that Bob can't fill up his fucking tank. We're halfway through the process of destroying 65 million years of evolution in about 200 years. I'd sooner wipe out the entire human race than keep us on the path we're on. There is no mechanism by which we will resolve this issue ourselves. No matter of ingenuity or science or activism will reverse this course. We are hard-wired for survival and competition but we have mastered our environment so we're no longer threatened by it. We have turned that survival instinct against each other and the only people who have the ability to effect change are those whose spirit of competition and self-interest is strongest. By definition, those of us who would sacrifice our own interest for the good of humanity are never going to be in a position to do so.

 

You liked that blog post or article or whatever it was. You contributed to propagate that person's worthless, dangerous opinion. That scared me. But anyways...

 

Regarding the soldier, I actually agree with everything you said, the suspicious nature of the timing which is most likely just a coincidence, the quality of the POTUS reaction and the fact that if, after the investigation is concluded, it is determined that he did desert, then he should be found guilty of that... all the way until your proposed consequences. No one should be executed, and certainly not for failing to support the American war machine, but I understand that that viewpoint is totally incompatible with yours since 1. as a soldier yourself, you need to know for certain that the guy next to you has your back no matter what, a reality that I couldn't possibly understand, and desertion flies in the face of that and 2. you likely support the death penalty in other cases as well whereas I never do, which is a fundamental belief difference that is external to this topic.

 

Other than that death penalty bit though, our positions are really pretty close.

 

I honestly have no idea what you're talking about. I like dozens of posts per day (most of them science, fitness, military, or entertainment related) because I use FB as a sort of link aggregator, where I view hundreds of posts per day. I also "like" some posts because I'd like to read them later. Sometimes I don't get to them or forget to unlike when I'm done.

 

And I've unliked dozens of pages of all kinds for the very reason you mentioned, because the page posted something stupid, racist, "dangerous," over-generalizing, etc. I'm usually quite choosy about my activities on FB, but I'm not perfect by any means. And I am usually quite careful with liking generalized posts because I have friends from all sides of the political spectrum. Even so, political posts make up maybe 10% of what I see and like/respond to on FB. The fact that they are so over-represented in my "what your friends see" list is just another thing I dislike about FB.

 

If I had one complaint about your complaint, it is how choosy folks are with whom they condemn for such generalizations. We've been having political discussions on this board for years now and nearly everyone has made generalized statements- and often- yet, because I'm the odd libertarian, I get shit for it if I do it. No one has EVER complained about anyone else making such statements. (This is like Envy having a hissy fit because I failed to source a couple of posts out of the dozens that I did source, but ignoring EVERYONE else that fails to source any posts at all. Selectivity sucks.) I don't view this as a personal thing because I expect it in such situations, but it's not like I've never complained about this before. Not a personal attack here, just an observation.

 

I'm not really an environmentalist, but I actually agree with pretty much your entire response on the subject. I just disagree with the idea of politicians using environmental science as a bludgeon for an agenda that has little to do with science. Anyway, I don't really want to talk about that. We can if you want, but I think it would be a boring conversation.

 

I'm not a broad supporter of the DP, believe it or not. I certainly don't support the DP for the reasons it currently exists. In this case, I'm probably less committed to my position of the DP for BB than you are for not having him pay that specific penalty. We can talk about that more if you like.

 

-edited for clarity-

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought our government had a firm policy not a capitulate to terrorist demands.

 

We did until a couple of days ago. And now that we've done it once, we'll be doing a lot more.

 

This is a historic moment for us. Today our enemy for the first time officially recognized our status.

Asked whether the Taliban would be inspired by the exchange to kidnap others, he laughed. “Definitely,” he says. “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.”

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We did until a couple of days ago.

 

Incorrect.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_and_state_terrorism

 

We negotiate with, and use terrorists all the time. It's a decision that usually makes sense, even.

 

Did you watch the video I linked? The people we're giving guns to are literally driving around the streets shooting and decapitating civilians.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

More on topic, I don't believe desertion should be a crime, and I hope he fights deportation to the USA from Germany, and makes a break for Russia.

 

Desertion is not the same as skipping out on some boring college class and treason is not at all similar to simple gossip between two girls on the playground. Even if there wasn't the silly matter of a legal contract every service member signs and swears to, there is a very serious moral breach involved. Not that you care, it seems, but if you're going to trivialize a serious matter, you should at least understand the seriousness of that matter.

 

Incorrect.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_and_state_terrorism

 

We negotiate with, and use terrorists all the time. It's a decision that usually makes sense, even.

 

Did you watch the video I linked? The people we're giving guns to are literally driving around the streets shooting and decapitating civilians.

 

Your Wikipedia(?!) link has little to do with the discussion at hand. Also, I can't tell if you are intentionally misinterpreting/misrepresenting what "negotiation" means in the context of this discussion or if you really don't know the difference between "negotiating with terrorists" and "supplying arms and aid" to varying groups, terrorist or not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Desertion is not the same as skipping out on some boring college class and treason is not at all similar to simple gossip between two girls on the playground. Even if there wasn't the silly matter of a legal contract every service member signs and swears to, there is a very serious moral breach involved. Not that you care, it seems, but if you're going to trivialize a serious matter, you should at least understand the seriousness of that matter.

 

 

Your Wikipedia(?!) link has little to do with the discussion at hand. Also, I can't tell if you are intentionally misinterpreting/misrepresenting what "negotiation" means in the context of this discussion or if you really don't know the difference between "negotiating with terrorists" and "supplying arms and aid" to varying groups, terrorist or not.

 

I understand why you find desertion serious. I, however, value our soldiers and their mental well being more than our state's force projection capabilities. If someone is seriously morally appalled by behavior to the point where it affects their mental well being, I believe they should have the opportunity to simply walk away from it. Maybe if that was the case we wouldn't have such a high number of suicides among service members.

 

Seriously, you don't think we've negotiated with terrorists as part of these deals? You think we  just give them weapons/supplies for free? Fine.

 

Iran hostage crisis (Hostages in Iran)?

 

Iran Contra (Hostages in Lebanon)?

 

The video I posted above, do you know where they got their weapons?

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/11/world/middleeast/11iraq.html?pagewanted=print&_r=0

 

Even the people who ran the Iraq/Afghanistan detainee operations have been on record saying that we negotiate with them, and I'd think they're more qualified to say that then either of us.

 

 

Charles "Cully" Stimson, a security expert at the conservative Heritage Foundation think tank, said there are even more examples of small-scale negotiations with terrorist groups that the public, and many members of Congress, just don't know about.

Under President George W. Bush, Stimson helped coordinate the Pentagon's detainee operations in Iraq, Afghanistan, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and other places around the world. He said presidential administrations of both political parties routinely have been forced to deal with terrorist groups for "information, supplies, personnel — a lot of different topics."

"We have had very quiet negotiations, or discussions at least, with terrorist groups over the years on a whole host of things," Stimson said. "They just haven't usually come to light."

 

So it's completely disingenuous or ignorant to think that we haven't negotiated with terrorists, or haven't been for the last 30+ years.

 

Although you could say that this is the first true prisoner swap we've seen in public, but we've always been swapping prisoners for money/arms.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your mistake was relying on me not to be a smartass.  I was quoting Reagan directly re: the Contra affair :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What else are we going to do with the people at Gitmo? Have a battle royale fight to the death with all the detainees when we're sick of paying for it?

 

I would imagine they will be sent back to Afghanistan once we leave. OEF will be over, so it makes sense to give them back.

 

Although, knowing what I know about the TB and many of the dudes locked up in GTMO, a fight to the death would be a better death than they deserve.

 

Not sure what to do with those that weren't captured in AFG. Give them to a regional ally, maybe? They'll be brutally tortured and likely killed without any semblance of justice, but, hey, at least we won't be forced to house them, right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In a semi-related note, the ISIS is fucking shit up around Syria and Irak. Good thing the US intervened to free the Iraqi people from their Islamic oppressors!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks a lot CIA, glad you guys have an unlimited budget and no oversight

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In a semi-related note, the ISIS is fucking shit up around Syria and Irak. Good thing the US intervened to free the Iraqi people from their Islamic oppressors!

 

Good thing we cut and run from Iraq before they were even close to being ready to defend themselves! Afghanistan is next, but first we need to pull out of there before their military is fully trained, too!

 

In all seriousness, though, this isn't the problem of a single administration. It's too easy for one side to blame Bush, Kerry, and Clinton's deception and votes to go to war or Cheney/Rumsfeld's "war on the cheap" for getting us into it or for another side to blame the Obama administration for being so shortsighted about wanting us to get out of Iraq at any cost. Part of the problem lies directly at the feet of the Iraqi army, as they have proven to be cowardly, riddled with insider threats. In the end, it might be the northern Kurds that resolve this whole situation. They have the manpower (quarter million), the motivation (avoid genocide), the equipment, the solidarity, and the training.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmm I forgot to check these forums.

 

Cat, your assessment of Obama in Iraq is very interesting. In foreign policy academia, it has been fashionable for about ten years to make comparisons between Iraq and Vietnam because there are so, so many similarities between the two. A complete lack of planning beyond the military. An unstable political situation. A population which doesn't get along. A lack of defined goals. etc etc. But you just hit the head on another one: When Nixon pulled out, people accused him of "cutting and running" and then, not long after the South signed the cease fire with the North, the NVC just steamrolled through South Vietnam with ease. Nixon / Kissinger considered launching airstrikes, but concluded that the public's will for further intervention had been completely sapped, and they were further unsure where that would lead: If the airstrikes are ineffective, then what? What are our goals here, exactly? To stop an intercine conflict? Nixon / Kissinger concluded that there was nothing they could do, and let it go.

 

Some problems do not have answers, and most of the solutions being bandied about right now are more concerned with appearing to do something than actually having a sound strategy behind them. ISIS is succeeding because Maliki is an incompetent leader (fun fact, right now I'm writing a research paper on the US decision to back a coup against South Vietnamese president Diem in 1963, who was also quite incompetent, and was being blamed for the lack of early US military success. They replaced him, got a series of military dictatorships, the population came to distrust their government and defections to the north increased. And now there are press conferences about replacing Malicki. The Iraq-Vietnam comparisons are infinite.). Our military cannot transform Malacki into a competent leader. I also very much doubt we are capable of finding a suitable replacement - our track record on understanding Iraqi politics is pretty shit - and I don't think that we want to be in that position anyway.

 

So as the Iraqi military fades away into the desert in the face of a few thousand, airplane-less extremists, what should we do? if the problem is Maliki - and I think it is - then what's the solution? Cruise missiles won't fix it, neither will airstrikes or troops on the ground, and we are not qualified to pick his successor - nor should we, if Iraq is to become a democracy. Any US intervention makes future escalation due to circumstance very likely. And nobody wants an Iraq 3.

 

We should do nothing. Iraq will stand on its own and repel the extremists or it will splinter into three states which will probably fight each other for years. This problem is beyond our capability for fixing and we need to recognize that, in Iraq, we're done.

 

Side note - there is an interesting development in the Kurdish-held north. The Kurds, by the way, fought off ISIS from Kirkuk  [which says something about the feeble state of the Iraqi army] and are now consolidating power in the oil-rich areas there. They struck a deal with Turkey to ship Kurdish oil to Turkish ports, where it is then loaded on tankers. Iraq and the US have warned everyone they can find that buying the Kurdish oil is illegal and will result in problems - because the oil should be Iraqi oil, basically some self-starters have arbitrarily seized an Iraqi oil field. As a result, there are two oil tankers floating around the Med right now waiting, hoping for a buyer and a place to dock. Last I heard, our best friends ever Israel were going to buy the 1 million barrels one of the two ships holds, in no small part because the Kurds offered it at half off and Israel likes the idea of a splintered Iraq.

 

State legitimacy from oil sales. Brave new world.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×