Thoughts? I still stand by the fact that it was right to bring him home. But now that he’s here…
I have a modicum of sympathy if you’re a draftee and a deserter. But Bergdhal is a stain on the entire Great State of Idaho.
[quote]Mikeyali wrote:
Thoughts? I still stand by the fact that it was right to bring him home. But now that he’s here…
I have a modicum of sympathy if you’re a draftee and a deserter. But Bergdhal is a stain on the entire Great State of Idaho. [/quote]
I tend to agree on the latter. I’m attempting not to let the media circus color my assessment but…nah I just can’t NOT hate him for desertion.
Regarding the former however, I don’t think it was right of us to give up 5 high level terrorists and negotiate with terrorists.
[quote]Aragorn wrote:
[quote]Mikeyali wrote:
Thoughts? I still stand by the fact that it was right to bring him home. But now that he’s here…
I have a modicum of sympathy if you’re a draftee and a deserter. But Bergdhal is a stain on the entire Great State of Idaho. [/quote]
I tend to agree on the latter. I’m attempting not to let the media circus color my assessment but…nah I just can’t NOT hate him for desertion.
Regarding the former however, I don’t think it was right of us to give up 5 high level terrorists and negotiate with terrorists.
[/quote]
The whole transaction makes zero sense to me unless bergdahl was specifically on a mission to collect intel. What could even be gained from the trade? Who authorized it and why?
[quote]Aragorn wrote:
Regarding the former however, I don’t think it was right of us to give up 5 high level terrorists and negotiate with terrorists.
[/quote]
Isn’t it possible that people decided bringing Bergdahl to justice/taking him into custody was deemed more important/useful than whatever the terrorists can provide?
The very premise of the U.S. negotiating with terrorists for a single random soldier seemed off to begin with, especially given the commonly stated stance of “the U.S. doesn’t negotiate with terrorists”.
Now, I have no idea whether the U.S. actually adhered to this faithfully, but afaik the U.S. tends to just go in and murder people to get hostages back from terrorists, not negotiate for them.
Obama violated the law (not notifying Congress 30 days prior) to commit treason. He then covered his crimes by having Susan Rice lie to the MEDIA saying that this deserter served with honor and distinction and that he was captured “on the field of battle”… Give me a fucking break. REAL soldiers fucking DIED while searching for this piece of shit. THEIR families didn’t make it to the White House Lawn. Obama is a fucking disgrace to everything we stand for. He is a criminal and a liar.
The ONLY reason this trade happened is because he saw an opportunity to get rid of the five terrorists from Gitmo. He started worrying about his “legacy” and that he (once again) lied on the campaign trail about making it a top priority to shut it down. So if he can’t try and execute these fuckers, he had to find an excuse to just set them free. Which he did without notifying Congress (why should he? I mean, EVERYONE knows that the LAW doesn’t apply to HIM, he’s the “chosen one”). He then justified his illegal action by fucking LYING about Bergdahl’s service in a pathetic attempt to spin this shit.
The bottom line is this: our boys serving over there in harms way are now in greater danger because Obama sent a very clear message: “please capture our low ranking soldiers so I can give you your generals back”.
Bergdahl wasn’t drafted, he enlisted. He volunteered. Then he abandoned his post and got people in his unit killed for his shenanigans. He then cooperated with the enemy and allowed himself to be used as a pawn. A position that HE put himself in…
Fuck Bergdahl and fuck Obama. It’s be interesting to see how the liar in chief tries to spin this one.
I am curious if men who served in our military still view Bergdahl as a soldier when all signs point to him being willing to seek out the Taliban. This is not a guy caught or captured on the battlefield, but an enemy sympathizer. Did we really bring an American home ?
This issue has a lot of 1) mixing of issues and 2) “value of hindsight” involved.
An overriding, very American, principal is that we don’t leave our people on foreign soil and we bring them home. That’s why we devote a lot of resources accounting for those MIA from all of the American 20th Century conflicts. (Especially Korea and Vietnam). The criteria for bringing them home isn’t their rank; their level of service…or whether they were “pieces of shit” or not (I’m sure there are “pieces of shit” buried at Arlington).
You bring this guy home; let him face Military scrutiny and justice; and let him face the consequences.
That was done. (Including holding him accountable of the risk he put other soldiers in).
Bringing our people home that are still alive leaves us with difficult options. You either 1) send in a rescue Team or 2) you negotiate that release.Negotiations have historically (and not just America, but for a lot of countries) usually come at a high cost, either in money or what we get in return. (Ask the Israeli’s about it).
But we’ve decided it is part of who we as American’s, and that it is worth it.
In terms of what the President did, and how he did it being illegal?
Everything he does seems to either be put on the level of either High Treason or being Un-Constitutional…so I really have no idea what is true and what isn’t. I would imagine that him filling out a Tournament Bracket is probably unconstitutional in some way.
Mufasa
[quote]MaximusB wrote:
I am curious if men who served in our military still view Bergdahl as a soldier when all signs point to him being willing to seek out the Taliban. This is not a guy caught or captured on the battlefield, but an enemy sympathizer. Did we really bring an American home ?[/quote]
The Military has clearly determined what they think of him.
Mufasa
[quote]Mufasa wrote:
[quote]MaximusB wrote:
I am curious if men who served in our military still view Bergdahl as a soldier when all signs point to him being willing to seek out the Taliban. This is not a guy caught or captured on the battlefield, but an enemy sympathizer. Did we really bring an American home ?[/quote]
The Military has clearly determined what they think of him.
Mufasa
[/quote]
I doubt all men who served would agree that we should have gone after him. We have people here in our forum who have served, whose opinions I value a shitload more than some bureaucratic spokeshole.
[quote]MaximusB wrote:
I am curious if men who served in our military still view Bergdahl as a soldier when all signs point to him being willing to seek out the Taliban. This is not a guy caught or captured on the battlefield, but an enemy sympathizer. Did we really bring an American home ?[/quote]
We brought an American home. We did not bring a American soldier home.
“…What it’s “worth” depends on what we get back…”
Can you even begin to imagine the overall confusion, controversy and public outcry that it would cause if we started “picking and choosing” who we bring home?
“…Well…your son or daughter served with honor…we’ll bring them Home…but I’m sorry…yours is a piece of Dog Shit that needs to Burn in Hell…”
I don’t even think MILITARY people would advocate that.
I think that they would say 1) bring them home and 2) let us decide.
That’s what happened in this case.
Mufasa
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]MaximusB wrote:
I am curious if men who served in our military still view Bergdahl as a soldier when all signs point to him being willing to seek out the Taliban. This is not a guy caught or captured on the battlefield, but an enemy sympathizer. Did we really bring an American home ?[/quote]
We brought an American home. We did not bring a American soldier home. [/quote]
This is what I was looking for, thanks for the feedback.
[quote]Mufasa wrote:
“…What it’s “worth” depends on what we get back…”
Can you even begin to imagine the overall confusion, controversy and public outcry that it would cause if we started “picking and choosing” who we bring home?
“…Well…your son or daughter served with honor…we’ll bring them Home…but I’m sorry…yours is a piece of lDog Shit that needs to Burn in Hell…”
I don’t even think MILITARY people would advocate that.
I think that they would say 1) bring them home and 2) let us decide.
That’s what happened in this case.
Mufasa [/quote]
6 American soldiers died looking for Bergdahl, who openly sought out the enemy while quitting his duties. 5 high level enemy executives were released, some of which have looked to rejoin the fight. There is more than a decent argument in calling Bergdahl a piece of shit.
[quote]Mufasa wrote:
This issue has a lot of 1) mixing of issues and 2) “value of hindsight” involved.
An overriding, very American, principal is that we don’t leave our people on foreign soil and we bring them home. That’s why we devote a lot of resources accounting for those MIA from all of the American 20th Century conflicts. (Especially Korea and Vietnam). The criteria for bringing them home isn’t their rank; their level of service…or whether they were “pieces of shit” or not (I’m sure there are “pieces of shit” buried at Arlington).
You bring this guy home; let him face Military scrutiny and justice; and let him face the consequences.
That was done. (Including holding him accountable of the risk he put other soldiers in).
Bringing our people home that are still alive leaves us with difficult options. You either 1) send in a rescue Team or 2) you negotiate that release.Negotiations have historically (and not just America, but for a lot of countries) usually come at a high cost, either in money or what we get in return. (Ask the Israeli’s about it).
But we’ve decided it is part of who we as American’s, and that it is worth it.
In terms of what the President did, and how he did it being illegal?
Everything he does seems to either be put on the level of either High Treason or being Un-Constitutional…so I really have no idea what is true and what isn’t. I would imagine that him filling out a Tournament Bracket is probably unconstitutional in some way.
Mufasa [/quote]
Obama didn’t communicate with Congress about the potential deal, as required by law. While I agree with you that there is too much reflexive hysteria regarding everything Obama does, in this case he clearly was trying yet another end-around of the law requiring Congressional involvement in something he is doing. There is no hysteria in pointing out this pattern of outright choices to avoid Congress. It’s no longer a tendency - it’s the way Obama governs, and it’s troubling (and that’s putting it mildly).
That criticism isn’t a function of Obama Derangement Syndrome.
As for the optics of the deal, now Obama will be known as swapping five dangerous terrorists for a cowardly traitor. That might be overly simplistic, but that will be the takeaway. Coupled with the Yemen meltdown, and the other stuff of course, it’s clear Obama’s foreign policy isn’t adrift - it’s aflame.
[quote]Mufasa wrote:
An overriding, very American, principal is that we don’t leave our people on foreign soil and we bring them home. That’s why we devote a lot of resources accounting for those MIA from all of the American 20th Century conflicts. (Especially Korea and Vietnam). The criteria for bringing them home isn’t their rank; their level of service…or whether they were “pieces of shit” or not (I’m sure there are “pieces of shit” buried at Arlington).
[/quote]
Fine, and understood, this is the principle at play (at least on the surface/Obama and his legacy nonsense.)
However, please explain how this reconciles with drone striking American citizens ( Anwar al-Awlaki - Wikipedia ) because he wore the wrong funny hat and said bad things about the US around the wrong people?
Seriously. It’s beyond fucked up we give up 5 terrorist generals (I’m assuming AC is right here) for an obvious low level traitor, however nuke a different traitor AND HIS SON FFS.
Please reconcile these two actions for me.
NYTs is upset Bergdahl may not get an honorable discharge.
Bergdahl needs to face 7 honorable discharges from the barrels of 7 M4s held by 7 MPs while he is tied to a post and wearing a black sack on his head.
Soldiers died looking for the traitorous asshat. He needs to die.
Okay…I’m stupid, uninformed, naive and silly.
Enlighten me.
What should have been done with the guy?
Mufasa
[quote]Mufasa wrote:
Okay…I’m stupid, uninformed, naive and silly.
Enlighten me.
What should have been done with the guy?
Mufasa[/quote]
A predator drone strike would have been OK with me.