What's new
By:
USCHO Fan Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.

The Global War on Terror 5.0: Putin on the Risk

Status
Not open for further replies.
Re: The Global War on Terror 5.0: Putin on the Risk

And if Obama had let the guy die over there the same people who are now criticizing him would have lambasted him for letting a brave soldier rot in captivity.
 
Re: The Global War on Terror 5.0: Putin on the Risk

Priceless said:
And if Obama had let the guy die over there the same people who are now criticizing him would have lambasted him for letting a brave soldier rot in captivity.
Click to expand...
If a guy flips sides, then he's no longer a US soldier.
 
joecct said:
Except a swap wasn't done. Using the logic cited, I would guess that talking to Congress in June 2014 about invading Syria makes it ok to do it in August 2016 under the War Powers Act?

And if Sgt. Bergdahl went willingly, how can it be a hostage for prisoner swap?
Click to expand...

What if McCain said this year that he would be inclined to support the release?

COOPER: Would you oppose the idea of some form of negotiations or prisoner exchange? I know back in 2012 you called the idea of even negotiating with the Taliban bizarre, highly questionable.

MCCAIN: Well, at that time the proposal was that they would release -- Taliban, some of them really hard-core, particularly five really hard-core Taliban leaders, as a confidence- building measure. Now this idea is for an exchange of prisoners for our American fighting man. I would be inclined to support such a thing depending on a lot of the details.

[...]

COOPER: So if there was some -- the possibility of some sort of exchange, that's something you would support?

MCCAIN: I would support. Obviously I'd have to know the details, but I would support ways of bringing him home and if exchange was one of them I think that would be something I think we should seriously consider.
Click to expand...

Huh.

Odd that McCain doesn't refer to him as a traitor who "switched sides" but as an "American fighting man" instead. Probably more of those Vietnam-induced hallucinations the Tories warned us about back in 1999.
http://mediamatters.org/blog/2014/06/03/cnn-lets-john-mccain-off-the-hook-for-shifting/199561
 
unofan said:
There's a big gap between desertion and being a traitor. Care to back up your allegations which are going way past what anyone else is claiming?
Click to expand...

Dude, it was all in Sarah Palin's Facebook screed. She's already convicted him of treason. The only question is the method of execution. Personally, I hope they go with burning him at the stake.
 
Re: The Global War on Terror 5.0: Putin on the Risk

Just read the feature story on Bergdahl by Rolling Stone from a couple of years ago. Sounds like he deserted, but he was definitely not a traitor, and his comrades in arms that are being paraded through the media were a bunch of fark-ups too. Sounds like an all around farked up situation.

If you want to read it: http://m.rollingstone.com/politics/news/americas-last-prisoner-of-war-20120607

None of that really goes into whether the trade was good or bad policy, though. I'm of the belief that either way, it's not a new policy, but just SSDD.
 
Re: The Global War on Terror 5.0: Putin on the Risk

unofan said:
Still waiting for something to back this up.
Click to expand...
If - indicates a situation that may occur.
a guy (as opposed to the guy) - a general statement. The guy would indicate a specific person. A guy in a general statement.

So, "if a guy flips sides" is a general statement that applies, in this context, that my opinion is that any soldier who flips sides in no longer a US soldier. If I had written "The guy flipped sides and he is no longer a US soldier" then that would be a declarative sentence and would require proof that somebody authoritatively ascertained that Sgt. Bergdahl changed sides. Right now the waters are muddy on which side of the street Sgt. Bergdahl is walking.

Do I think he's a deserter? Probably. AWOL? Most assuredly. Traitor? That remains to be seen. It's one thing to be captured in combat and then spill your knowledge under interrogation vs. walking away from your post and sharing your knowledge with the enemy. The facts, eventually, will speak for themselves.
 
joecct said:
If - indicates a situation that may occur.
a guy (as opposed to the guy) - a general statement. The guy would indicate a specific person. A guy in a general statement.

So, "if a guy flips sides" is a general statement that applies, in this context, that my opinion is that any soldier who flips sides in no longer a US soldier. If I had written "The guy flipped sides and he is no longer a US soldier" then that would be a declarative sentence and would require proof that somebody authoritatively ascertained that Sgt. Bergdahl changed sides. Right now the waters are muddy on which side of the street Sgt. Bergdahl is walking.

Do I think he's a deserter? Probably. AWOL? Most assuredly. Traitor? That remains to be seen. It's one thing to be captured in combat and then spill your knowledge under interrogation vs. walking away from your post and sharing your knowledge with the enemy. The facts, eventually, will speak for themselves.
Click to expand...

Don't pull that "I'm just asking questions" bullshiat when the question is a clearly loaded one pulled out of thin air. That makes you look as disingenuous as fishy's "Im an independent who just happens to side entirely with the GOP" bit.

What sources have you read that makes the water murky about him possibly being a traitor? Because there's been absolutely nothing I've seen that comes anywhere close to accusing him of aiding and abetting the enemy. Desertion? yes. Traitor? You apparently pulled that out of your ***, since you still haven't provided anything backing that up.

But I guess you'd have no problem with me making the statement, "If joecct beats his wife, he's an ***hole," since I'm not actually saying you beat your wife.
 
Last edited:
Re: The Global War on Terror 5.0: Putin on the Risk

busterman62 said:
More knuckledraggers complain that Obama broke the law by not consulting congress
Click to expand...

I did not realize that Sen. Feinstein had come over to the dark side. :rolleyes: In all seriousness, members on both sides are not happy with the administration.

And now comes news that President Feckless and his crew bypassed the intel community, which was dead set against the swap.

The Obama administration largely bypassed the intelligence community to green-light the risky swap of five Taliban leaders for American Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl, officials tell Fox News, as new details emerge about concerns with the deal at the highest levels of President Obama's team.

A military intelligence source also confirmed to Fox News that a second option -- involving the payment of a cash ransom for Bergdahl's freedom -- was pursued as late as December 2013.

SNIP

Further, top officials including Director of National Intelligence James Clapper and then-Defense Secretary Leon Panetta were firmly against the proposed transfer in 2012 after it was first floated.
Click to expand...
 
SteveP said:
I did not realize that Sen. Feinstein had come over to the dark side. :rolleyes: In all seriousness, members on both sides are not happy with the administration.

And now comes news that President Feckless and his crew bypassed the intel community, which was dead set against the swap.
Click to expand...

Oh the irony of calling him feckless while railing against him for doing his own thing...
 
Re: The Global War on Terror 5.0: Putin on the Risk

unofan said:
Don't pull that "I'm just asking questions" bullshiat when the question is a clearly loaded one pulled out of thin air. That makes you look as disingenuous as fishy's "Im an independent who just happens to side entirely with the GOP" bit.

What sources have you read that makes the water murky about him possibly being a traitor? Because there's been absolutely nothing I've seen that comes anywhere close to accusing him of aiding and abetting the enemy. Desertion? yes. Traitor? You apparently pulled that out of your ***, since you still haven't provided anything backing that up.

But I guess you'd have no problem with me making the statement, "If joecct beats his wife, he's an ***hole," since I'm not actually saying you beat your wife.
Click to expand...

I never said Sgt. Bergdahl was a traitor. I'm awaiting further information from the news wires (not Fox - SURPRISE!) before I cross that line. I DID call him a probable deserter.

As to the last sentence - nope. Logic (from what I remember from college) has if (statement) then (conclusion). If the statement resolves false, then the conclusion is always true. Thus, if the South won the Civil War, then the Maple Leafs are the defending Stanley Cup champions is a true statement.

So I guess I am an *******, no matter what. :)
 
Re: The Global War on Terror 5.0: Putin on the Risk

joecct said:
Now if they can use this tech on my driver, I think we have something, Farquahr!
Click to expand...

Cmon, Joe. That would take the fun out of golf.

Anyone can play down the middle, but it takes a real man to play out of the trees! ;)
 
Re: The Global War on Terror 5.0: Putin on the Risk

I think we should be careful about condemning Bergdahl absent an authoritative accounting of his actions. To be sure, things definitely don't look good for him now. But there's plenty of time to settle up as required. As to the release of Taliban "commanders," we're not talking about Rommel here. These dudes will quickly return to playing croquet with donkey turds.

I'm even feeling a twinge (just a twinge, mind you) of sympathy for Obama here. He figured this would change the subject from his VA ineptitude. I doubt this is what he had in mind. He reminds me of the guy who goes out on his front porch on Halloween to stomp on the burning bag of dog poop. Besides, how could anyone doubt Ms. Rice's analysis of Bergdahl's service, given her record for candor?
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top