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

Maybe now that Russia won the Mickey Mouse World Championships in hockey, Vlad will be less cranky. It all started when TJ Oshie made Bobrovsky his bee-yotch.
 
Re: The Global War on Terror 5.0: Putin on the Risk

Is it just me, or does this Bergdahl - Taliban trade stink of politics and read like the plot of Homeland?

A reportedly nutbar deserter for five high level terrorists who'll be back in action after a year's vacay in Qatar? And now, it'll be open season on capturing US troops to use as trade bait.

From all that I've read, his parents are as wackadoodle as he supposedly is.

Ray Shero would be embarrassed by this deal. :rolleyes:
 
Re: The Global War on Terror 5.0: Putin on the Risk

I rarely frequent threads like this and am not coming at this with any political slant. I'm simply seeking info. What am I missing about Bergdahl? Is he someone of utmost importance to us so that giving up 5 bad guys turns out to be an equal "transaction". I don't want to come across as insensitive, I just don't understand why we were so willing to make this deal.
 
Re: The Global War on Terror 5.0: Putin on the Risk

J.D. said:
I rarely frequent threads like this and am not coming at this with any political slant. I'm simply seeking info. What am I missing about Bergdahl? Is he someone of utmost importance to us so that giving up 5 bad guys turns out to be an equal "transaction". I don't want to come across as insensitive, I just don't understand why we were so willing to make this deal.
Click to expand...

Good analyses from author Brad Thor and from Lt. Col Alan West

Thor:

U.S. Army Sergeant Bowe Bergdahl has been released from captivity. That’s the good news. Every American and every freedom-loving person in the world should rejoice. The reunion with his family will be a major media moment and a major moment for the president. The bad news is that President Obama has now placed a target on the back of every single American – civilian and military alike.

For more than 200 years, the United States has had a policy of not trading prisoners for American hostages. That policy has been shredded and international travel to even cities like London, Paris, and Amsterdam will now pose an exceptional danger for Americans.

And as Americans, we must all ask: at what price was Sgt. Bergdahl’s freedom purchased?
Click to expand...

West:

So, we must have a discussion of the truth here. Army SGT Bergdahl was not “captured” by the enemy in 2009. He abandoned his assigned post on his Forward Operating Base (FOB), leaving his weapon. Several U.S. Army Soldiers lost their lives in search for Bergdahl. His disappearance can only be classified as desertion and the media must not be so giddy about a good news story that they don’t tell the truth — which is apparent to many. The allegation of desertion is serious. It is grave because it occurred during a war, during combat operations.

The U.S. Army must uphold proper order and discipline and this allegation must be investigated — but the truth is already known. I believe the liberal media will attempt to elevate him to some type of status that will cause the Army not to pursue the right direction under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). We who have served in Iraq, Afghanistan, and other combat areas of operation against radical Islamists know they don’t hold our troops — they are savagely and brutally murdered. They exist to kill Americans.

Are we glad that Bergdahl is home? After five years, yes, but there are many unanswered questions that cannot be dismissed because of emotions.
Click to expand...
 
SteveP said:
Good analyses from author Brad Thor and from Lt. Col Alan West

Thor:



West:
Click to expand...

Not to be too picky, but we haven't been at war since Japan surrendered in 1945. People are quick to point that out to me when I raise the treason question. So, legally, if what West says is true, is it still desertion since war was never declared? Since the maximum penalty for desertion in a time of war is death it's kind of an important technicality.

And here begins OP claiming I'm a terrorist sympathizer or have a bleeding heart or whatever.
 
Re: The Global War on Terror 5.0: Putin on the Risk

Priceless said:
Not to be too picky, but we haven't been at war since Japan surrendered in 1945. People are quick to point that out to me when I raise the treason question. So, legally, if what West says is true, is it still desertion since war was never declared? Since the maximum penalty for desertion in a time of war is death it's kind of an important technicality.

And here begins OP claiming I'm a terrorist sympathizer or have a bleeding heart or whatever.
Click to expand...

A war declaration does not need to be made in order to have a state of war, for such rules and penalties to apply to our troops.
 
St. Clown said:
A war declaration does not need to be made in order to have a state of war, for such rules and penalties to apply to our troops.
Click to expand...

I didn't know, but I just did some research online and see the maximum penalty for desertion since 9/11 is two years in prison with most defendants receiving less than 12 months. It seems unlikely this guy is going to be tried for desertion since most public opinion of him is that he was a POW.
 
Priceless said:
Not to be too picky, but we haven't been at war since Japan surrendered in 1945. People are quick to point that out to me when I raise the treason question. So, legally, if what West says is true, is it still desertion since war was never declared? Since the maximum penalty for desertion in a time of war is death it's kind of an important technicality.

And here begins OP claiming I'm a terrorist sympathizer or have a bleeding heart or whatever.
Click to expand...
Was he receiving combat pay at the time? If so, then *he* was at war, regardless of whether or not there was a formal declaration of war.
 
Re: The Global War on Terror 5.0: Putin on the Risk

while i will never know all the details, i just can't make sense of why this was done
 
Priceless said:
Not to be too picky, but we haven't been at war since Japan surrendered in 1945. People are quick to point that out to me when I raise the treason question. So, legally, if what West says is true, is it still desertion since war was never declared? Since the maximum penalty for desertion in a time of war is death it's kind of an important technicality.

And here begins OP claiming I'm a terrorist sympathizer or have a bleeding heart or whatever.
Click to expand...

I won't label you, but war or not if you refuse to recognize that this sets a dangerous precedent....
 
Slap Shot said:
I won't label you, but war or not if you refuse to recognize that this sets a dangerous precedent....
Click to expand...

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...uz-us-policy-has-changed-now-we-make-deals-t/

It's debatable whether this is really a new precedent or simply a continuation of how things have always gone.

Edit: presuming you were taking about the overall issue. I don't know military law or anything about the definition of desertion if that's what you were referring to.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top